<preamble>
Jason wrote in response to a private e-mail message from me:
> NB> Hmm... maybe we should move this discussion to the majordomo-workers
> NB> list and get some input from the others?
>
> Well, you chose to pay no heed to my requests to report bugs in public. If
> you now want to discuss this in public, I have no objections.
I think that I've read all of the documentation which comes in those snapshot
tarballs and there seem to be no requests to report bugs in public there.
Ah well, that'll be a topic for a separate bug report :)
Anyway, from now on, everytime that I report something which I believe to
be a bug, the report will be made on the majordomo-workers list.
</preamble>
Jason wrote:
> If the headers themselves contain 8bit characters, they will be
> 2047-encoded before transmission. (The MIME tools take care of that.)
Well, then there is a bug is in that area. In my tests this didn't happen.
> Note that legality of address in the headers is not something Majordomo
> particularly cares about; its main concern is with the envelope. The
> exception is when it uses the address in the header as the default address
> for a command.
I still maintain that since Majordomo has begun to take over the work of an
MTA, it has also inherited the responsibility of the MTA to conform to all
internet standards in all pieces of e-mail which it sends out.
If it is possible in any way to trick Majordomo into violating the standards,
and right now we don't have the resources to fix this problem in a reasonable
way, we should at least clearly explain the problem and potential implications
in the BUGS file of the Majordomo distribution.
-- NB.
Follow-Ups:
|
|
