Re: [Nmh-workers] Dealing with missing From: header during send.

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

On 2012-01-08, at 18:36 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:

> I cannot decide what is the correct behavior here; opinions?  Seems like
> both of these behaviors are wrong in their own way.  I am working
> on the assumption that we will make DUMB the default, unless people really
> want to include code to handle MMDF and UUCP addresses.

They are both wrong in terms of RFC582[12], although the REALLYDUMB case gives 
the submission agent a fighting chance of rewriting the the envelope and 
message From addresses into something that will work in practice.  But there 
are no guarantees that REALLYDUMB+MSA-rewrite will work, either.  E.g. an 
RFC4409 submission agent is free to reject a message with an unqualified MAIL 
FROM.

Rather than guess, we should treat the absence of a From: header in an outgoing 
message as a configuration error and abort the send. This change makes the 
creation of a components file with a 'From:' header mandatory; the code that 
initializes the Mail/ folder should probably be extended to prompt for a 
default From address which is then used to create a minimal components file.

--lyndon

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail