On 2007-12-01 22:11:28 +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>
> John Levine wrote on the DKIM list:
>
> >> Would the mailing list software replace the Sender: Scott header
> >> field, or would it reject the submission ?
>
> > Replace it, since the list is the Sender: for the mail it sends.
>
> Okay, let's say that's what "some" (= maybe almost all) lists do.
>
> But it's not specified in RFC 1123 5.3.6(b), therefore also not in
> RFC 2821 3.10, and most important not in I-D.klensin-2821bis 3.9:
>
> | 3.9. Mailing Lists and Aliases
> |
> | An SMTP-capable host SHOULD support both the alias and the list
> | models of address expansion for multiple delivery. When a message
> | is delivered or forwarded to each address of an expanded list form,
> | the return address in the envelope ("MAIL FROM:") MUST be changed
> | to be the address of a person or other entity who administers the
> | list. However, in this case, the message header section (RFC2822
> | [9]) MUST be left unchanged; in particular, the "From" field of
> | the header section is unaffected.
>
> Note "the message header section [...] MUST be left unchanged".
>
> We're in Last Call about this, this will be the "law", if you think
> it is flawed please say so - but better not only on the DKIM list.
Thanks for pointing this out. I do think this is flawed. Not only
prevents this inserting or altering a "Sender" field, it also
contradicts RFC 2369 (a proposed standard), which recommends inserting
various "List-*" fields into the header.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | It took a genius to create [TeX],
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | and it takes a genius to maintain it.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | That's not engineering, that's art.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
