Sendmail applet may need to validate on RCPT

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Vladimir Dronnikov <dronnikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't see why do you want to accept server options.
>> This can only fool users (so it's worse than useless, it's harmful).
>
> Previous reading of sendmail compatibility (a few months ago) ended
> with "we should be as compatible as we can". This I treated as "accept
> but ignore options we do not implement".

It is slightly wrong. "accept but ignore" is ok when this doesn't
cause obviously unexpected behavior. I recently added
"accepted but ignored" -v (verbose) options to rm and cp,
because it seems to be safe. OTOH, I would not add accepted but ignored
-n to cat, as that basically ignores the reason why people use -n:
to get lines numbered.

> So I put a union of options I
> ever found in various sendmail mans to getopt32(). Now I see it only
> bloated and fools people. A good lesson, I'd say.
>
> Let's define the set of BB sendmail options we must support. I'd name:
> * -o: in particular, "-oi" is implied;
> * -t: read recipients from the message and add them to those given on
> cmdline. I think it should be implied as it is the major case;
> * -f sender: what to specify in MAIL FROM.
>
> We also will support BB extended network parameters: -H 'connect
> helper' xor -S 'server[:port]', and -w 'network timeout'.
>
> That is all. Comments?

Yep, please put this info in comments.
--
vda