>>>>> "MC" == Merrill Cook <mcook@ecunet.org> writes:
MC> Bounce, as in send to the list owner? Or bounce, as in return to the
MC> sender with an informative messaeg?
Well, the problem is that according to the headers we don't have a place to
send the mail back to.
MC> It'd be nice if MD would send a "your mail headers are screwed up"
MC> message back to the sender...
If the headers are screwed up, how are you supposed to figure out who the
sender (i.e. RFC822 originator) is to get a message back to them?
The original question was what to do with a clear violation of RFC822,
i.e. two Reply-to: headers. Remember, if Reply-To: exists, you can't
expect to reach anyone at the from: address. That's what Reply-To:
designates.
The (implied) rest of the question is what to do with multiple RFC822
mailboxes appearing in a From: or Reply-To: header. You can't subscribe
them both (address file can't have comma-separated addresses, I believe).
At the moment majordomo aborts with a HOSTILE ADDRESS error, which isn't
generally a good thing in any case. Since I've got my nose in &valid_addr
at the moment anyway, I'll try to hack in a better response as I've done
with the other problem addresses that I'm detecting.
MC> as opposed to sending things to the list-owner, who is likely to be
MC> clueless.
The list owner is clueless? In general, I've found that the subscribers
are even more lacking in clues than the owner.
- J<
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
