[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:14:18 -0500 |
>| Return-Path isn't - that's only intended for mail delivery, messages should
>| never contain one of those until they're being delivered (and anyone who
>| believes they should should thank any mailer that corrects them).
>
>Letting users supply return-path is both reasonable and necessary.
Hm. I did some research, and I'm going to have to side with kre on this
one. RFC 2822 clearly states:
A message-originating SMTP system SHOULD NOT send a message that
already contains a Return-path header. SMTP servers performing a
relay function MUST NOT inspect the message data, and especially not
to the extent needed to determine if Return-path headers are present.
SMTP servers making final delivery MAY remove Return-path headers
before adding their own.
I guess what nmh should be doing depends on whether or not it's using
SMTP or "pipe to the local MTA". If it's the former, it definately
shouldn't allow Return-Path; if it's the latter, it _might_ be okay
(although I personally think it's a bit bogus - clearly Return-Path was
never meant to be used this way, and supporting a wacky qmail feature
just doesn't strike me as a good justification).
>On the one hand, your MTA is in charge of checking the input (because any
>user can talk directly to it.) Mine (qmail) does, and so anything my MUA
>(MH) does is at best redundant. But in this case MH is actively causing
>problems, because it isn't enforcing the correct rules. qmail uses
>user-supplied return-path to set the envelope sender on outgoing messages
>(and removes the return-path header from the message.) That's perfectly
>sensible, and very nice.
It seems like a knob that lets you adjust the SMTP envelope From
address is really what you want, rather than using Return-Path
particularly. I'm open to suggestions as to the best way to implement
such a knob. I think the functionality is valuable, certainly.
>I use it all the time to convince mailing list
>software that checks the envelope that I'm posting from the address they
>have on file, for example.
Is that why I have to approve every mail to nmh-workers from you? :-/
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, Scott Schwartz, 2004/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, Scott Schwartz, 2004/02/02
- Message not available
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, Robert Elz, 2004/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, Scott Schwartz, 2004/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, schwartz+l-nmh-workers, 2004/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, Ken Hornstein, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, schwartz+l-nmh-workers, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, Ken Hornstein, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, Neil W Rickert, 2004/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, schwartz+l-nmh-workers, 2004/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, Ken Hornstein, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, Neil W Rickert, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, Ken Hornstein, 2004/02/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration, schwartz+nmh-workers, 2004/02/03