From xemacs-m  Fri Mar 14 11:08:04 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA10897
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 11:08:02 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQcgwa20642; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 12:08:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 12:08:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQcgwa20642.199703141708@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: [comp.xemacs.xemacs]: forwarded message from Michael Uelschen 
In-Reply-To: <199703141642.LAA29628@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
References: <QQcgvv19473.199703141549@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
	<199703141642.LAA29628@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
X-Face: /cA45WHG7jWq>(O3&Z57Y<"WsX5ddc,4c#w0F*zrV#=M
        0@~@,s;b,aMtR5Sqs"+nU.z^CSFQ9t`z2>W,S,]:[+2^
        Nbf6v4g>!&,7R4Ot4Wg{&tm=WX7P["9%a)_da48-^tGy
        ,qz]Z,Zz\{E.,]'EO+F)@$KtF&V

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu writes:
 > On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:49:02 EST, you said:
 > > Xemacs produces
 > > 
 > > 	user@host.domain
 > > 
 > > It should be
 > > 
 > > 	user@domain
 > > 
 > > It seems to be a problem of xemacs-20.0. All other mailer I've tested
 > > (mail,elm,xemacs-19.13) worked correct.
 > 
 > OK.. Here's the quick and dirty executive summary.  What happens is this:
 > 
 > 1) Most mailers hand it off to Sendmail with a 'From: userid'
 > 
 > 2) The system's sendmail is configured to do "domain masquerading", and
 > if it sees a raw 'userid', it appends '@our.domain' to it.
 > 
 > 3) XEmacs hands it to Sendmail with 'From: `getpwname()`@`gethostname()`
 > (more or less, you get the idea).
 > 
 > and then we have
 > 
 > 4) The Sendmail is too broken to canonalize 'userid@our.FQDN.blat' back
 > down to 'userid' (usually because it fails to recognize its own hostname)
 > and therefor doesn't append the '@our.domain'.

Or the configuration assumes that if you specified a user@FQDN, it is
what you want and leaves it alone.  This has been the default action
for stock sendmail configurations since at least the mid-1980's.  What
Naggum did in the face of this overwhelming number of configurations
is just pis---, umm, urinating against the prevailing air currents.

