From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Oct 24 3:26:49 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-27-149-77.mmcable.com [24.27.149.77]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B4CB37B479 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 48296 invoked by uid 100); 24 Oct 2000 10:26:45 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14837.25572.953392.395342@guru.mired.org> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:26:44 -0500 (CDT) To: "Karel J. Bosschaart" Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MS Exchange server and FreeBSD mailing lists In-Reply-To: <36389629@toto.iv> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 10) "Capitol Reef" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Karel J. Bosschaart writes: > Can someone tell me where in fact is the faulty behaviour? The use of > non-required headers by the FreeBSD lists or the 'design' of Exchange? The bug is in the Exchange server. It's a mail exchanger, which means that according to RFC 1123 it "SHOULD NOT alter any existing header fields". Whether the header is required - or even known - is irrelevant; they shouldn't be touching it. The reality is that your local support staff probably can't fix this, as they don't have the sources to MS exchange. If they're honest, they'll admit that it's a bug in their "supported" software, and they can't do anything about it until there's a new version. From the sound of things, they'll claim that the Exchange server isn't a mail exchanger, so this clause doesn't apply to them. While that may be true, it's clearly brain-damaged, and a good reason to *not* run MS software. Have you thought about running your own SMTP server? That's probably easier than dealing with such behavior. You might ask why they don't randomly drop the To: field, as it's a non-required field according to RFC822, but that would be like pulling the wings off flies.