Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post

[Paul Fox]

lyndon wrote:
 > But there is another issue that we need to address.  Envelope-From: 
 > is a valid message header.  It's remotely conceivable that someone
 > might have a need to use it for another purpose.  And there are
 > other SMTP parameters that it might be useful to set, e.g.: 
 > deliver-by.  I don't like the idea of co-opting yet more headers
 > out of the 822 namespace for this.


is there any technical reason that the proposed Envelope-From: header
functionality simply be named "Return-path:"?  since i assume MH will
remove this header (whatever we call it) from the draft before
submitting to SMTP, i wouldn't think there's a conflict.

(other SMTP directives could still be done with syntax something like
that proposed by lyndon.)

paul

 > 
 > I would prefer to build these non-822 directives using a syntax that can't 
 > be 
 > confused with a valid 822 header. I suggest the format:
 > 
 >     metahead = "." directive *(SP params)
 >     directive = LETTER *(LETTER / DIGIT / "-")
 >     params = ; free-form text to the end of line
 > 
 > In the new syntax the above example would be written as:
 > 
 >   From: address@hidden
 >   Sender: address@hidden
 >   .mail-from address@hidden
 > 
 > Post would strip out all the .foo meta-headers.  Since these headers will be 
 > specific to the backend transport I would suggest ignoring ones unknown to 
 > the 
 > backend, and giving the backend the ability to print warnings, or abort the 
 > send, if there are problems processing a recognized directive.
 > 
 > --lyndon
 > 
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Nmh-workers mailing list
 > address@hidden
 > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

=---------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 67.6 degrees)