Re: Hamm: Exim + Chos standard?
efraim@argh.org (Alexander Koch) wrote on 13.06.97 in <[🔎] 19970613155951.55940@desire.camelot.de>:
> Quoting Philip Hands (phil@hands.com):
> > Qmail is most definitely capable of UUCP (I use it here), and AFAIK bang
> > paths can be done with rmail.
>
> With what addition? Last time I really tried it, it was only working with
> some additions like rsmtp (as I mentioned, btw) and no bangs.
>
> Exim is (this news is also old) not capable of bang paths or uucp, just
> using rsmtp works fine, though it's not sure if it all works.
I seem to remember reading somewhere in the exim docs that some simple
bang addresses are understood by exim. Not sure about that.
Anyway, bang addresses should really not be used, even with UUCP.
> If Exim comes with an rmail wrapper script, all is fine.
>
> > I'm not sure how you would deal with having to bangify addresses, but does
> > anyone still need to do this ? If so then I suppose they should be using
> > a mail system that handles it.
>
> standard uucp needs it, rsmtp not really any more, a mailertable or
> pathalias- table (smail) is enough, somewhat.
Not quite. UUCP needs bang-specified envelopes; it doesn't care about
what's in the RFC 822 headers.
Note also that you seldom need more than one UUCP hop these days.
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: