On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> How would you describe what they do do?
Sendmail and (recent versions of) Postfix never add a Sender: field to the
header. Exim (by default) adds a Sender: field corresponding to the
authenticated sender if this is different from the From: field, which i
Dave Crocker wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
"The "Sender:" field specifies the
mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
message."
Popular MTA implementations (Sendmail, Postfix) do not implement the
Sender: header the way 822 and 2822 suggest,
How would you
Ha! Yammer-To-Author! Hilarious!
Thanks for making my day. :-)
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
Steve Dorner wrote:
At 9:14 AM -0800 12/5/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
Frankly I think [Resent-] should be deprecated, because it causes so
much trouble.
Along with From, Sender, and R
Tony Finch wrote:
"The "Sender:" field specifies the
mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
message."
Popular MTA implementations (Sendmail, Postfix) do not implement the
Sender: header the way 822 and 2822 suggest,
How would you describe what they do
At 9:14 AM -0800 12/5/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
Frankly I think [Resent-] should be deprecated, because it causes so
much trouble.
Along with From, Sender, and Reply-To. :-)
I see no straightening out of the tangle we are in regarding all
these fields. We keep trying to tweak the rules, twea
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't recall anyone considering using Resent- fields for this until
> just now, but I could easily have missed it
I think it's a cute idea, but Resent- fields are an interop nightmare
because the 822 specification is too weak to work in general (
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Well, let's get back to first princples. RFC 2822 3.6.2:
>
> "The "Sender:" field specifies the
>mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
>message."
Popular MTA implementations (Sendmail, Postfix) do not implement
> Well, let's get back to first princples. RFC 2822 3.6.2:
> "The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox of the agent
> responsible for the actual transmission of the message."
Heretically rejecting the RFC 2822 restriction to one Sender header
field appears to put things back in order and
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 12/1/07 at 3:30 PM +, John Levine wrote:
RFC 2822 section 3.6.2 describes originator fields. By my reading it
is pretty clear that a list should add a Sender: field with the list's
name since it's the list that's sending the mail.
Uh.not by my reading. Lists
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> But if RFC 2822 is followed, then Sender SHOULD NOT be present unles there
> are explicit reasons for doing so. The usual examples given are:
>
> 1. The secretary is sending on behalf of her boss
> 2. There are multiple entries in the From (in which case the Sender MUST
> b
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:32:26 -, Mark Martinec
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm observing regular cases of originator signature breakage
by mailing lists which DO NOT modify mail body or header in
intrusive ways. This happens every time the poster included
a Sender header field in its origina
Pete Resnick wrote:
[Apologies for duplicates, if any. List issues and decided to Cc
ietf-822 and ietf-smtp.]
On 12/1/07 at 3:30 PM +, John Levine wrote:
RFC 2822 section 3.6.2 describes originator fields. By my reading it
is pretty clear that a list should add a Sender: field with the
[Apologies for duplicates, if any. List issues and decided to Cc
ietf-822 and ietf-smtp.]
On 12/1/07 at 3:30 PM +, John Levine wrote:
> RFC 2822 section 3.6.2 describes originator fields. By my reading
> it is pretty clear that a list should add a Sender: field with the
> list's name si
Mark Martinec wrote:
I'm observing regular cases of originator signature breakage
by mailing lists which DO NOT modify mail body or header in
intrusive ways. This happens every time the poster included
a Sender header field in its original posting, and then sign it.
A mailing list which replaces
[Apologies for duplicates, if any. List issues and decided to Cc
ietf-822 and ietf-smtp.]
On 12/1/07 at 3:30 PM +, John Levine wrote:
RFC 2822 section 3.6.2 describes originator fields. By my reading
it is pretty clear that a list should add a Sender: field with the
list's name since it'
> It would be nice to have a clear guideline on what a mailing list
> should do with a Sender, and/or a guideline that DKIM should not sign
> the Sender field if message is intended for posting.
+1 on clear guidelines for discussion lists, but let's make that a new
BCP rather than trying to cram i
Mark Martinec wrote:
I'm observing regular cases of originator signature breakage
by mailing lists which DO NOT modify mail body or header in
intrusive ways. This happens every time the poster included
a Sender header field in its original posting, and then sign it.
A mailing list which replaces
> >Would the mailing list software replace the Sender: Scott header
> >field, or would it reject the submission ?
John Levine wrote:
> Replace it, since the list is the Sender: for the mail it sends.
> This has nothing to do with DKIM, Sender-ID, or anything other than
> RFCs 2822 and 822.
Such p
On Dec 3, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Bill,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A mailing list is an original mail object that is comprised of
vetted submitted material much like a newspaper. It should take
submitted material, empty the accompanied envelope and remail using
a fresh clean
Bill,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A mailing list is an original mail object that is comprised of vetted
submitted material much like a newspaper. It should take submitted
material, empty the accompanied envelope and remail using a fresh clean
envelope with new headers.
In the abstract, the model
404-847-6397
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:54 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender
John Levine wrote:
> RFC 2822 section 3.6.2 descri
John Levine wrote:
RFC 2822 section 3.6.2 describes originator fields. By my reading it
is pretty clear that a list should add a Sender: field with the list's
name since it's the list that's sending the mail.
+1.
A mailing list agent often and reasonably changes a message in substantial
>Can you (Charles + Scott, or anybody else who knows it) please
>check this ? I thought that mailing lists are NOT supposed to
>insert Sender (or Resent-*) header fields unless they wish to
>participate in PRA checks (RFC 4406).
Since Sender-ID is at most an experimental RFC, no sensible mailing
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote on the DKIM list:
On Thursday 29 November 2007 06:32, Charles Lindsey wrote:
Note that a mailng list expander is supposed to insert a Sender.
IIRC it's a SHOULD and not a MUST, so one really can't rely on it.
Can you (Charles + Scott, or anybo
24 matches
Mail list logo
