"Philip" == Philip Guenther <guenther(_at_)gac(_dot_)edu> writes:
Philip> Ian T Zimmerman <itz(_at_)transbay(_dot_)net> writes: ...
Yes and no. I still don't see WHY this particular (quite complex)
behavior was deemed useful. Basically, it only makes difference in
a suspect situation - when someone is trying to forge the info.
Why would they care in what way precisely they're foiled?
Philip> Why would an untrusted user use the -o flag? Well, it's silly
Philip> to use it with the -f flag (except -f-), so it would
Philip> presumably be used when there might be an existing "From "
Philip> line and the user wanted to have his or her address in the
Philip> "From " line instead (that is, they _want_ to tell the truth).
Philip> Hmm, in that case they should just be saying "-f $USER".
Philip> <pause> I think you may be right: the logic is more
Philip> complicated than it needs to be; there should be three options
Philip> for untrusted users, a choice between:
Philip> a) just their username in the "From " line,
Philip> b) some other address in the "From " line and their username in
Philip> a ">From "line, or
Philip> c) no "From " line at all.
Philip> I'll have to think about this more and how it would work with
Philip> older applications that use the -o option. Perhaps the -o
Philip> option should just be trated like "-f $USER"?
Yes, that would make excellent sense to me.
<itz(_at_)transbay(_dot_)net> general personal mail
<itz(_at_)prosa(_dot_)it> gpm (and|or) other free software (co)?maintained by me
<itz(_at_)lbin(_dot_)com> work - only if \$\$ is involved
Electing a quail for President might cause wierd affects,
such as school principles refusing to eat baked potatoe.