Re: none

[Sandy Cash <sandy @ psa . pencom . com>]

On 27 Oct 1997, Rich Pieri wrote:

> >>>>> "SC" == Sandy Cash <sandy@psa.pencom.com> writes:
> >> It is a more general case that an extant header not be changed by
> >> anything other than the agent that created the header (though mailbox
> >> rewriting for canonicity is allowed under SMTP).
> 
> SC> Once again, according to whom?
> 
> The former according to RFC 822; the latter according to SMTP (I do not
> know the SMTP RFCs off-hand).  Yes, SMTP breaks RFC 822, rewriting broken
> mailboxes in an unbroken fashion, in order to ensure that RFC 822 is not
> broken :).

Actually (and this will be the last time I respond to the list, as this
discussion has *no* place on this list, so replies to me directly,
please), RFC 822 makes absolutely no mention whatsoever about who may
modify the originator headers - see below for a specific reference re:
Reply-To.  And the SMTP RFC is 821 and has not been updated, FYI.

> SC> Completely false.  There is *no* stipulation that the Sender header
> SC> must be disallowed - in fact, according to your much-beloved RFC (did
> SC> you actually read it before posting this?), section 4.4.2,
> 
> SC> "In particular, the \"Sender\" field MUST be present if it is NOT the
> SC> same as the "From" Field."
> 
> Exactly.  A Sender header is generated only when this is the case.  If what
> would be in the Sender header is the same mailbox as is in the From header,
> the Sender header should not be generated.

Actually, if the sender field is redundant vis-a-vis From, then it is
discouraged for brevity's sake, but clearly and explicitly allowed
nonetheless under 822 (4.4.2).

> SC> And most well-configured MD lists (cf. a thread on this very list just
> SC> a few days ago) use "Reply-To" headers, which, if it exists,
> 
> Reply-To is an originator header: only the originator of a message may
> create it.  If Majordomo is the originator then its mailbox belongs in the
> originator (From) header; Majordomo does not do this.  If Majordomo is
> not the originator then it has no business generating Reply-To headers.

Rich, I'm sorry, but you simply have either not read or not understood RFC
822.   The RFC explicitly makes provisions for Reply-To to be
automatically set by automated mail distribution mechanisms such as MD.
The relevant section here is 4.4.4, page 22 in my copy.  Another mention
is in the preceding section, 4.4.3.

Once again, you (and anyone else who is interested in this discussion)
should *first* read the RFCs (http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfcXXX.txt, where
XXX is the number - for mail, the biggies outside of DNS issues are
821(SMTP), 822(Message Format), and 1123(Application Level Host
Requirements)), then reply directly to me - this discussion does *NOT*
belong on Majordomo-Users.  If you do want to mail me, please (are you
listening, Rich?) read the RFC before attempting to cite it.

-Sandy


--
================================================================================
 PPP   SSS  AA   |  SANDY CASH - Member, Pencom Systems Administration
 P  P S    A  A  |  Email: sandy@pencom.com Alt: scash@mindspring.com
 PPP   SS  AAAA  |  Phone: (703) 860-2222 Fax: (703) 860-9419
 P       S A  A  |  URL: http://www.mindspring.com/~scash/
 P    SSS  A  A  |  Snail: 1851 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4344

	Currently at:	Gilbarco, Inc., Greensboro, NC
	Phone there:	(910) 547-5492
	Email there:	Sandy_Cash@gilbarco.com (I check PSA much more often)
	Pager:		(800) 759-8888 PIN 879-9532 (Doesn't work at client)