On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 15:39, Richard Barrett wrote: > And I did not say it would. Nor is it necessary to so do. Outlook is > not wrong and nor is Mailman. Its just that some users are confused by > what they see and some mailing list admins are equally confused about > why their users are confused.
That's good, because I'm confused about why those users are confused too! Is it just that they're seeing stuff in the From field that they're not used to seeing? But let's examine the use of the Sender field in the first place. RFC 2822 says that "sender MUST occur with multi-address from". Well, generally the From header just contains the address of the poster. Even when we anonymize it, there will normally be just one address in the >From header. RFC 2822 goes on to explain the intended use of the originator fields in section 3.2.6. Quoting: The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message. For example, if a secretary were to send a message for another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the "Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in the "From:" field. Who's the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message? Is Mailman acting as this agent? Arguably not. If we interpret things this way, then Mailman shouldn't be adding any Sender header. Bounces /should/ still go to the right place because that will always be specified as the envelope sender, i.e. the SMTP MAIL FROM: address. Some remote MTAs may do the wrong thing when it sees messages for which we haven't munged Sender, but then that wouldn't be Mailman's problem would it? <wink> Perhaps the right fix for Mailman is to not touch the Sender header at all. If one is there, leave it. If not, don't add one. This makes me nervous though because maybe the voodoo about Sender and bounce backs is correct. One other thing. Mailman also adds an Errors-To header with the same envelope sender address. Errors-To isn't described in RFC 2822, and it's described as non-standard, discouraged in RFC 2076. This latter recommends Return-Path instead, so even there maybe Mailman isn't doing quite the right thing. (It's not clear to me whether Outlook is conflating From and Return-Path also, though.) If you want to play with this, then patch Mailman/Handlers/SMTPDirect.py. Look down at the bulkdeliver() function. You could try commenting out the "del msg['sender']" line and "msg['Sender'] = envsender" line. Also try changing the Errors-To fields to Return-Path. See comments I just added to the file in CVS. If you do try this, please report back here with your results. Are the various Outlooken behaving in a less confusing way? Are your bounces still going to the right place? For VERPs and non-VERPs? (This might be hard to tell, due to the plethora of mail servers out there.) -Barry ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ This message was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe or change your options at http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org