Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!ncrcan!brian From: brian@ncrcan.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Survey on damage by mailers. Message-ID: <471@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> Date: Thu, 26-Nov-87 18:07:28 EST Article-I.D.: ncrcan.471 Posted: Thu Nov 26 18:07:28 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 08:36:56 EST References: <408@minya.UUCP> <7754@g.ms.uky.edu> <8991@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Brian Onn) Organization: NCR Canada Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario Lines: 31 In article <8991@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Actually, the "From " line at the beginning of the file is a misfeature >> (in this day and age ... > >Unfortunately, when Unix mail got RFC822ized (at Berkeley, I believe), it >did not occur to the people doing it that RFC822 format and the old Unix >format ("From " lines at the beginning) were two *different* formats and >that they should convert between them rather than smushing them together. >There is just no excuse for having the sender's address appear in two >different places in two different forms. (Well, actually, nowadays it can >be handy to have a domainized address in "From:" and a bang form in "From ", >but that is a kludge if there ever was one.) I agree! I hate those "From " lines and "remote from" lines in mail messages. I have been giving serious thought to hacking on smail so that it removes those lines. As long as we have a domain mailer, I don't care how the mail got here. Of course this means that all sites that mess with the "From: " line will have to refrain from doing this :-). Anyone have any reasons (besides the obvious one above) as to why I should not go ahead and do this? Brian. -- +-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+ | Brian Onn | UUCP:..!{uunet!mnetor, watmath!utai}!lsuc!ncrcan!brian | | NCR Canada Ltd. | INTERNET: Brian.Onn@Toronto.NCR.COM | +-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+