Re: Zmailer SMTP: Anal retentive or correct?

[Scott Ballantyne <sdb@ssr.com>]

> 	Message transport envelope origins should always be
> 	in FQDN, if they are not, receiving system is IMO
> 	qualified to complain.  I don't do it, because at
> 	utu.fi there are systems using our mailhost as blinding
> 	hub --  uname@host --> uname@utu.fi
> 

No offense intended, but this is absurd. What if there is no FQDN?
There are sites out there still with only UUCP names. 

No argument that in a perfect world you are right, but in our present,
imperfect world filled with imperfect software and people who have
agendas (like not wanting to pay the Internic) we are going to be
dealing with different types of networks for a while.

I would argue that it's a bug in the sending ZMAILER - rfc-821 says
that the argument to FROM: should be a reverse path suitable for
mailing an error message to.

So the sending zmailer should turn the simple FROM:<user@uucp> into a
source route, and in fact rfc-821 says that:

	 The <reverse-path> can contain more than just a mailbox.  The
         <reverse-path> is a reverse source routing list of hosts and
         source mailbox.  The first host in the <reverse-path> should be
         the host sending this command.

So zmailer is at fault in not sending a proper source route - it
should be placing our hostname as the first host in the reverse-path,
instead of sending an unqualified hostname, but it isn't.


>    Now presume the sender hostname to be:
> 	polaris
>    At  utu.fi  there is an old server with that same name,
> if we receive email from outside claiming origins from:
> 	user@polaris
> are we right to assume it to be   user@polaris.utu.fi  ?
> 
> 

Of course not, but that's why there should be a source route used in
these cases. To return an error to the proper polaris, you would route
it back through the hosts it came from.

sdb