>> "SL" == Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SL> Says who? We have two shell machines. web1.calweb.com and
SL> web2.calweb.com. But we'd prefer mail go to mx.calweb.com or
SL> mail.calweb.com. We could put in a rewrite rule but that would,
SL> as you say above, screw up any user level modifications.
Souldn't then mx.calweb.com be marked as the top MX for both boxes?
But BIND is not my field of endeavour, so I may be wrong.
Note, that my rewrite only takes place, if the From address has the
(unofficial) hostname, not if a specify a From: header in a MUA.
SL> ~7000 and even with a script I'd not want to enter rewrite rules
SL> like that for even a fraction of the people since it is up to them
SL> to handle.
Of cause it is up to them. The script runs as a gid who can change the
file. They may only change their own entry (realuid), so there is no
problem with this.
>> Sure, it is nice if programms supply an option for a From: Header (I
>> couldn't use "bug" until I set up the rewrite), but it is not a bug
>> IMHO.
SL> If it cannot put in the proper address, that is a bug and should
SL> be filed accordingly.
As I stated before, it *used* a proper address (my username + my
domain). But these are not valid outside my own LAN. This is not a
buggy behaviour IMHO. An application may assume, that the user can be
reached at this address.
>> mailsystem should work. You are always free to submit patches that
>> enhance a program.
SL> I'm always free to report them as bugs. Not everyone is a coder,
SL> Martin, not even in Debian.
Sure. But you have to convince the maintainer (or if you can't reach a
consense debian-devel can bring clearification) that this is actually
a bug and not the way *nix handles this case. When an application uses
the username + domain one sets in /etc/hosts, it does the Right
Thing(tm).
Asking an application to make the From: header an option is a wishlist
bug IMHO.
Ciao,
Martin
