On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 11:22:55AM +0100, Carlos Sousa wrote: > On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:19:45 +1000 > Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote: > > > >> i guess antigen didn't specify any @ in From:, and the other > > > >> mta's filled in their own name for some reason... > > > > > > > > That's the default behavior of all MTA's I'm familiar with. > > > > > > Some MTAs do indeed qualify random unqualified addresses they find > > > with their own mail domain name. > > > > The reason is so the you can type mail <username> and have it end up > > at the right place. i.e. you don't need to know the mail domain to > > send a mail to the local user. > > In that case, the mail message should *never* leave the local domain. > > > They also fix the from address so that if the message is > > forwarded offsite, the reply still makes it. > > Still makes it where? In my case, the message originated in a > university in the US, but the MTA there didn't add its domain. Then it > appeared in my mailbox as coming from my ISP's domain, so if I reply to > it, it'll get nowhere near its original sender. > > I agree this *has* to be a bug. Relaying MTAs should not take over > important mail headers, that's dangerously close to mail forgery...
I don't think that declaring something which complies with RFC 2821/2822 (the core SMTP-based email RFCs) is a good idea. The message should not have left the remote server without a qualified domain, but this is a bug in *their* implementation, *not* in the receiving MTA. Please do more research into the standards before making such a claim next time. Though it's "free" status may be in question, the doc-rfc package remains available to Debian. Well, the split version of it does, anyway. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]