seeming bug in sendmail.el: resend using -t always does wrong things it seems...

[Lane A. Hemaspaandra]

dear emacs bug list keeper,

hi!  i use emacs Rmail but am NOT an expert.  however, i noticed that
when i C-u f a message sometimes the machine i am resending to itself
seems to try to send carbons to all the people in the original carbon
copy fields!!---an incorrect behavior.  on May 25th i sent to our
labstaff here an example showing that that was happening (i include it
below).  and they shortly thereafter determined (related to a guess i
sent) that the problem seems to be a change in sendmail.el that i
think was proposed at
  http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2001-01/msg00127.html
and is part of the current sendmail.el---namely, a change in 
sendmail that results in using the -t flag always.  anyway, here is
the reply the staff sent me:

====================================================================
>From bukys@cs.rochester.edu  Wed May 26 11:57:10 2004
To: "Lane A. Hemaspaandra" <lane@cs.rochester.edu>
cc: bukys@cs.rochester.edu, labstaff@cs.rochester.edu
Subject: Re: mail problem... 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 May 2004 19:13:31 EDT."
             <200405252313.i4PNDVIU019879@bangkok.cs.rochester.edu> 
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:56:54 -0400
From: Liudvikas Bukys <bukys@cs.rochester.edu>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0
        tests=BAYES_30,IN_REP_TO
        version=2.55-cs.rochester.edu_001
X-Spam-Level: 


I hand-sent one test message to your RoadRunner account, just to be sure.
You should see that next time you read RoadRunner mail.

MEANWHILE, however,
I must conclude that /usr/share/emacs/21.2/lisp/mail/sendmail.el is broken,
in exactly the place you discovered.  ALWAYS invoking -t is wrong.
As you showed earlier, the code for treating "Resent" mail used to be there,
but was commented out.  For history on why, you can see
  http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2001-01/msg00127.html
but in any event, its current state is broken.  "Fixing" the resent code
might be tricky.  Is there an easy alternative such as keybinding to
piping through a shell script?  -- e.g. for resending just pipe into
"| /usr/lib/sendmail lh@rochester.rr.com"?
====================================================================

again, i'm not at all a mail expert, and so don't follow -t flags and
so on, but the change made in 2001, to fix one bug, seems to have
introduced the bug i mentioned above.  (if this is the wrong place to
send it, i apologize for having taken your time.  and in any case,
thanks and best regards.)

cheers,
lane (hemaspaandra, Univ. of Roch. Dept. of Comp. Sci.)
- ------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: 25 May 2004 16:35:36 -0400
From: "Lane A. Hemaspaandra" <lane@cs.rochester.edu>
To: labstaff
Subject: mailer problem: blind-forward and cc fields and emacs rmail and mail 
system

dear labstaff,

i've noticed recently that when i blind-forward an email, sometimes
the mailer tries to send it NOT to whatever address i resend it to but
instead to someone who was in the carbon copy of the ORIGINAL email.  
you can see this happening below.  the mailer i use is the emacs rmail
system.  the command i use is NOT f, but 
         C-u f
namely, the blind-forward command.  now, i can see that that leaves
most of the header intact, but still, in the past i don't recall the
forwarded CC's taking effect (though i can see why they might), and
now they often seem to.  so, i guess this probably is a problem in
either email rmail itself, or if not, is a problem in the say sendmail
is interpreting what emacs is handing it.

cheers,
lane
- - ------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 16:20:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@nymx01.mgw.rr.com>
To: <lane@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Warning: could not send message for past 4 hours
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (warning-timeout)
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0
        tests=BAYES_60,MAILER_DAEMON
        version=2.55-cs.rochester.edu_001
X-Spam-Level: *

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

- - - --i4PGNDar014368.1085516442/nymx01.mgw.rr.com

    **********************************************
    **      THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY      **
    **  YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE  **
    **********************************************

The original message was received at Tue, 25 May 2004 11:28:48 -0400 (EDT)
from gate.cs.rochester.edu [192.5.53.207]

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
451 hunnu.edu.cn: Name server timeout
451 hunnu.edu.cn: Name server timeout
451 hunnu.edu.cn: Name server timeout
451 4.0.0 I/O error
Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours
Will keep trying until message is 2 days old

- - - --i4PGNDar014368.1085516442/nymx01.mgw.rr.com
Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; nymx01.mgw.rr.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:28:48 -0400 (EDT)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; lh@rochester.rr.com
Action: delayed
Status: 4.4.2
Remote-MTA: DNS; ms-mta-01-fn.nyroc.rr.com
Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 16:20:42 -0400 (EDT)
Will-Retry-Until: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:28:48 -0400 (EDT)

- - - --i4PGNDar014368.1085516442/nymx01.mgw.rr.com
Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers

Received: from gate.cs.rochester.edu (gate.cs.rochester.edu [192.5.53.207])
        by nymx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4PFSOZu012756
        for <lh@rochester.rr.com>; Tue, 25 May 2004 11:28:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bangkok.cs.rochester.edu (bangkok.cs.rochester.edu 
[128.151.67.144]) by gate.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/004) with ESMTP id 
i4PFSCl29125 for <lh@rochester.rr.com>; Tue, 25 May 2004 11:28:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bangkok.cs.rochester.edu (localhost.cs.rochester.edu 
[127.0.0.1]) by bangkok.cs.rochester.edu (8.12.8/004u) with ESMTP id 
i4PFSCA3017917 for <lh@rochester.rr.com>; Tue, 25 May 2004 11:28:12 -0400
Received: (from lane@localhost)
        by bangkok.cs.rochester.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4PFSBxu017913;
        Tue, 25 May 2004 11:28:11 -0400
Resent-Message-Id: <200405251528.i4PFSBxu017913@bangkok.cs.rochester.edu>
Resent-From: lane@cs.rochester.edu
Resent-Date: 25 May 2004 11:28:11 -0400
Resent-To: lh@rochester.rr.com
X-Coding-System: undecided-unix
Mail-from: From ypzhang@hunnu.edu.cn  Mon May 24 02:35:42 2004
Received: from gate.cs.rochester.edu (gate.cs.rochester.edu [192.5.53.207]) by 
slate.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/005) with ESMTP id i4O6Zfq08282 for <lane>; 
Mon, 24 May 2004 02:35:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from antivirus2.its.rochester.edu (antivirus2.its.rochester.edu 
[128.151.57.53]) by gate.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/004) with ESMTP id 
i4O6ZWl25225 for <lane@cs.rochester.edu>; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:35:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from antivirus2.its.rochester.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by antivirus2.its.rochester.edu (8.12.9/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 
i4O6ZUOD000065
        for <lane@cs.rochester.edu>; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:35:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hunnu.edu.cn ([61.187.64.69])
        by antivirus2.its.rochester.edu (8.12.9/8.12.4) with SMTP id 
i4O6Z9aP029887
        for <lane@cs.rochester.edu>; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:35:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (eyou send program); Mon, 24 May 2004 13:53:27 +0800
Message-ID: <285378007.23031@hunnu.edu.cn>
Received: from 202.197.96.11 by 202.197.120.2 with HTTP; Mon, 24 May 2004 
13:53:27 +0800
X-WebMAIL-MUA: [202.197.96.11]
From: "ypzhang" <ypzhang@hunnu.edu.cn>
To: lane@cs.rochester.edu
Cc: ypzhang@hunnu.edu.cn
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:53:27 +0800
Reply-To: "ypzhang" <ypzhang@hunnu.edu.cn>
X-Priority: 3
Subject: paper submission
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
        boundary="----=_1085378007_23030.attach"
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine

- - - --i4PGNDar014368.1085516442/nymx01.mgw.rr.com--
- - ------- End of forwarded message -------
- ------- End of forwarded message -------
------- End of forwarded message -------