From xemacs-m  Fri Mar 14 12:29:53 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA11760
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 12:29:51 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQcgwf21845; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:29:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:29:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQcgwf21845.199703141829@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: [comp.xemacs.xemacs]: forwarded message from Michael Uelschen
In-Reply-To: <rvbu8mmjeq.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
References: <QQcgvv19473.199703141549@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
	<199703141642.LAA29628@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
	<QQcgwa20642.199703141708@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
	<rvbu8mmjeq.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
X-Face: /cA45WHG7jWq>(O3&Z57Y<"WsX5ddc,4c#w0F*zrV#=M
        0@~@,s;b,aMtR5Sqs"+nU.z^CSFQ9t`z2>W,S,]:[+2^
        Nbf6v4g>!&,7R4Ot4Wg{&tm=WX7P["9%a)_da48-^tGy
        ,qz]Z,Zz\{E.,]'EO+F)@$KtF&V

David Moore writes:
 > Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com> writes:
 > 
 > > Or the configuration assumes that if you specified a user@FQDN, it is
 > > what you want and leaves it alone.  This has been the default action
 > > for stock sendmail configurations since at least the mid-1980's.  What
 > > Naggum did in the face of this overwhelming number of configurations
 > > is just pis---, umm, urinating against the prevailing air currents.
 > 
 > To be honest, I think Erik's right: these machines are misconfigured.
 > 
 > But I'm ambivalent as to whether removing
 > 
 >   ;; Do this here in case the init file sets mail-host-address.
 >   (or user-mail-address
 >       (setq user-mail-address (concat (user-login-name) "@"
 >                                       (or mail-host-address
 >                                           (system-name)))))
 > 
 > from startup.el is bad or not.
 > 
 > If we remove it, we might have fewer complaints of the nature currently
 > seen.  But I find it a bad idea in general to cater to broken
 > behaviour,

What broken behavior?  Emacs chooses an address that is wrong and
feeds it to sendmail.  sendmail assumes that this address, being
syntactically valid, is what you meant, and leave it alone.  How
is this sendmail's fault, or the system administrators fault?
What is broken, other than Emacs?

