[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:57:43 -0400 |
>[ i tried to send this before, but something went wrong, and ken's
>moving so fast these days, i feel compelled to resend asap. :-) ]
You say that like it's a bad thing! :-)
> - if there are multiple addresses in From:, then require at least
> one of Envelope-From: or Sender:. create a Sender: from
> Envelope-From: if necessary, to satisfy the RFC.
> - Choose the SMTP envelope header from
> 1) Envelope-From:
> 2) Sender: (no "iff" -- i don't think there's a need for that)
> 3) From:
Hm. You know, I like this (and it seems that there is widespread agreement
that Sender: should always override From:).
There is one wrinkle: Right now Envelope-From: can be blank; if you
do that, then you will get a MAIL FROM:<>, which is useful if you
don't want any bounces at all. Sounds like the logic should be if
you have multiple From: addresses then Envelope-From: cannot be
blank. Actually, now that I think about it I might have written the
code that Sender can be blank, so I should fix that :-)
--Ken
- [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Ken Hornstein, 2012/03/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Tethys, 2012/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Paul Fox, 2012/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Paul Fox, 2012/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Robert Elz, 2012/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2012/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Ken Hornstein, 2012/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Robert Elz, 2012/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Robert Elz, 2012/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2012/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Robert Elz, 2012/03/12
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2012/03/12