From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/28092 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Russ Allbery Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Fully-qualifying Email addresses in outgoing mail Date: 10 Dec 1999 14:14:29 -0800 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035165000 28031 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 01:50:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:50:00 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from bart.math.uh.edu (bart.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.48]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA28613 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:15:08 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by bart.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAB27803; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:15:03 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:15:10 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17567 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:15:00 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA28597 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:14:37 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (qmail 21781 invoked by uid 50); 10 Dec 1999 22:14:29 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Stainless Steel Rat's message of "10 Dec 1999 17:03:09 -0500" Original-Lines: 27 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/Emacs 19.34 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:28092 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:28092 Stainless Steel Rat writes: > No, it is a mail transport agent (MTA) that speaks simple mail transfer > protocol (SMTP). qmail-inject is not an MTA and it does not speak SMTP. > Rewriting headers of an RFC 822 message for canonicity is a good thing. > But if a message is not an RFC 822 message, qmail-inject has absolutely > no grounds for turning it into an RFC 822 message. If you pass a message to qmail-inject, you're telling it that you want it to turn it into an RFC 822 message and then inject it into qmail's queue. > And even then, rewriting To and Cc is a Really Bad Idea because it can > and eventually will cause mail not to be delivered properly (see my > response to Kai's message for some details). qmail-inject is a piece of an MUA, specifically the bit that takes potentially unqualified and incomplete local mail and turns it into RFC 822 mail. If you don't want your message to be canonicalized according to the rules that it applies, don't pass it to qmail-inject. qmail only does message rewriting if you explicitly use the interface that is documented to rewrite messages, namely qmail-inject. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)