>>>>> "DS" == Dave Sill <de5@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> writes:
DS> "resend" will now look for an "Approved:" line as the first line of the
DS> body, in addition to as a header. This makes it easier for folks who
DS> can't insert headers with their mailer to generate "Approved:" lines.
I have never argued with that behavior.
DS> So clearly Majordomo first worked with real "Approved" headers, and the
DS> Approved-at-the-top-of-the-body hack came later.
Yeah, both that's completely orthogonal to the argument that I'm arguing.
I could be arguing the wrong one, though.
I'm saying that it's absurd to try to build up a message that has the exact
same headers as the message which you're trying to approve with the
addition of an Approved: header, and I'm also saying that it's even more
absurd to include both your headers and the headers from the original
message into one big header with lots of duplication (which Sendmail might
actually have cause for complaining about). If that's how Majordomo used
to work, then it's a good thing that it works better now. I haven't
explicitly coded against that behavior in 1.94, but nobody's tested it
either. That kind of behavior would depend exclusively on how the MTA
decides to handle it; it's not up to Majordomo.
DS> Sure, but mannoni@culture.fr implied that sendmail 8.8 broke the old
DS> behavior in some unspecified manor.
And we still don't know exactly what was happening, though if it's the
behavior that I'm arguing is absurd, then good riddance. There's a much
better method that doesn't require editing any headers. It would still be
nice to know what's going on, though.
Besides, we went through all of the approval methods a while back and
decided on the three legal methods. Completely faking the headers wasn't
one of them. These were posted to majordomo-users with a request for
comment and there was no dissenting comment. The code is in and has been
there for several alphas; now we're in beta and things are basically locked
in.
- J<
References:
|
|
