Yes, in Bounce the reverse path should become null (MailImpl.setSender(null)). I had
completely misunderstood the rules for bouncing.
We need a new getReversePath/setReversePath/<reversePath> and, for consistency, a new
getFrom/setFrom/<from> (your suggestion yesterday) in the AbstractRedirect hierarchy,
and modify the other getX/setX/<x> accordingly.
The redirect mailet should have a "smart" default behaviour for the four "sender"
related parameters (<returnPath>, <reversePath>, <sender> and <from>), as it has (and
must continue to have) for <recipients> and <to>.
My misunderstanding for Bounce came out from watching the existing "bounce" code in
james:
1) MailImpl.bounce sets the reverse-path to the bounced mail recipients , and uses the
Return-Path header set by MimeMessage.reply, that I don't know if set to NULL.
2) James.bounce sets correctly the Return-Path header to NULL ("<>") but sets the
reverse-path to the "bouncer", that is also used for the new >From header.
Both should be fixed (or not?).
Vincenzo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hontvari Jozsef [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: martedi 1 luglio 2003 16.24
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: Bounce, outgoing reverse path and fromAddress
>
>
> If I understand well, the Bounce mailet should be modified to set the
> reverse path of the outgoing mail to NULL. Currently it only sets the
> Return-path header.
>
> On the other hand, IMHO, setting the Return-path unnecessary, that is the
> task of the receiving server.
>
> Analysis:
> Bounce currently sets up the outgoing notification message in this way:
> -Return-path header = NULL
> -envelope sender alias reverse path (and fromAddress) = "sender"
> configuration parameter (assume postmaster)
> -recipient: reverse path of the original incoming mail. (Actually it uses
> the Return-path header of the original mail, but as I see James
> always sets
> that to the reverse path when smtp receives them message, so reverse path
> and return-path are always the same from incoming messages.)
>
> Let assume that the other mail server is also a James server. What happens
> is that:
> -it receives the mail with a reverse path postmaster
> -it overwrites the Return-path header of the mail with the reverse path,
> i.e. our postmaster!
> -the bounce has an invalid address (virus or spam)
> -it takes the new Return-path, which is postmaster, and sends back the
> message to out postmaster. Of courese this is what we wanted to avoid.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
