RE: Bounce, outgoing reverse path and fromAddress
> James does bounce back to the envelope sender (indirectly, using the > Return-path header, not mail.getSender()), ... This is correct, as the incoming message's return-path can be different from the reverse-path, and the first one should be used in this case (as of RFC 2821). > ... but with a NOT null > reverse path. And this IMO should be fixed. > So the problem is that the bounce may bounce back. I.e. the > bounce should be > sent with > MAIL FROM: <> > > As I see currently it is sent with MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (for example, this is the default). > Vincenzo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bounce, outgoing reverse path and fromAddress
James does bounce back to the envelope sender (indirectly, using the Return-path header, not mail.getSender()), but with a NOT null reverse path. So the problem is that the bounce may bounce back. I.e. the bounce should be sent with MAIL FROM: <> As I see currently it is sent with MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (for example, this is the default). - Original Message - From: "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:46 PM Subject: RE: Bounce, outgoing reverse path and fromAddress > > > > 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. > > I don't think this is true, James should return a bounce to the envelope sender( mail.getSender() ) which should also be copied to the return path header. > Shouldn't it?? > > d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Bounce, outgoing reverse path and fromAddress
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/ and, for consistency, a new
getFrom/setFrom/ (your suggestion yesterday) in the AbstractRedirect hierarchy,
and modify the other getX/setX/ accordingly.
The redirect mailet should have a "smart" default behaviour for the four "sender"
related parameters (, , and ), as it has (and
must continue to have) for and .
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]
RE: Bounce, outgoing reverse path and fromAddress
> 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. I don't think this is true, James should return a bounce to the envelope sender( mail.getSender() ) which should also be copied to the return path header. Shouldn't it?? d.
