Silent mail handler

John R. MacMillan john at chance.UUCP
Wed Apr 3 01:10:24 AEST 1991

|Depending on "attributes", I've seen smail 3.1 turn a perfectly fine
|(envelope address) "foo%bar at" (the names have been changed
|to protect the innocent) into garbage like "!foo%bar".

Any MTA that's misconfigured can munge addresses.  Smail was designed
specifically to be easier to configure than sendmail, and having used
both, I simply think they succeeded.

|This has happened recently, and of course people started pointing fingers
|at sendmail, saying things like "sendmail is munging addresses". Well, the
|problem was clearly demonstrated to be an smail problem -- sendmail was
|and is working just fine.

Don't you suppose there was a reason that everyone was quick to blame

|I've never found it necessary to use "ease". And sendmail with IDA
|enhancements has separate rewriting rules for headers and envelope, so
|it's trivial to *entirely avoid* rewriting headers.

I'm glad you have it figured out, but obviously plenty of people
don't, or there never would have been a need for ease, and sendmail
would not have achieved its near-legendary notoriety (although some of
the bugs in earlier versions certainly helped with that).

Sounds like the IDA enhancements certainly would help.

|There's no "trick" to configuring sendmail -- simply (1) read TFM and the
|applicable RFC's

Also sounds like TFM has improved, because what the vendor-supplied
version I had to use came with was next to useless.

I don't want this to degenerate into an MTA flamefest, so this is it
for me on the subject.  Closing arguments:  I've used smail, MMDF, and
sendmail, as well as looked over or worked on the code for all three,
and IMHO, sendmail is the most difficult to configure.

More information about the Comp.sys.3b1 mailing list