David F. Skoll wrote:
There is no need for you to know who the ultimate enduser composing the
e-mail is.
I don't want to know who the ultimate end-user is. I just want to know
the IP address of the machine that injected the email into Google.
It's a valuable of information I can use in my
Les Mikesell wrote:
How can it possibly matter if my laptop is sending from a Panera Bread
hotspot or a hotel room where it hasn't been before and probably won't
be again? Any decision you make based on that information is almost
certainly going to be wrong or biased by unrelated things done
On 2/17/2010 5:55 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
not add a Received: header for the browser client IP. Likewise when
sending from outlook 2003 or 2007 (much more believable as mail clients)
through exchange, the first Received: header is the server's.
Does that Received: header say where it got
-Original Message-
From: Matt Garretson
On 2/17/2010 5:55 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
not add a Received: header for the browser client IP. Likewise when
sending from outlook 2003 or 2007 (much more believable as mail
clients)
through exchange, the first Received: header is the
Joseph Brennan wrote:
I was baiting you :-) The HTTP hop from end user to Gmail's webmail
server is not SMTP, so it's not covered by RFC 2821.
Well, RFC 5321 says:
When forwarding a message into or out of the Internet environment, a
gateway MUST prepend a Received: line, but it MUST
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:47:54 -0500
David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
Joseph Brennan wrote:
I was baiting you :-)
it should work :D)
The HTTP hop from end user to Gmail's webmail
server is not SMTP, so it's not covered by RFC 2821.
Well, RFC 5321 says:
When
On 2/17/2010 8:47 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
So... I would say that gmail.com is violating a MUST requirement of
RFC 5321.
Here's something similar. When I log into a timeshare and send mail
with Pine, you don't get to see the ssh hop from my Mac either.
There's no email gatewaying going on
Les Mikesell wrote:
How is running pine on a remote machine any different than running a web
interface to mail, perhaps on that same remote machine?
Because running pine over SSH is not a gateway as defined in RFC
5321, whereas running a Webmail server that accepts email using some
kind of
On 2/17/2010 10:07 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
How is running pine on a remote machine any different than running a web
interface to mail, perhaps on that same remote machine?
Because running pine over SSH is not a gateway as defined in RFC
5321, whereas running a Webmail
Les Mikesell wrote:
Because running pine over SSH is not a gateway as defined in RFC
5321, whereas running a Webmail server that accepts email using some
kind of transport (HTTP or HTTPS) and then delivers it using SMTP *is*
a gateway as defined in RFC 5321.
Sorry, but a web interface isn't
On 2/17/2010 12:05 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Because running pine over SSH is not a gateway as defined in RFC
5321, whereas running a Webmail server that accepts email using some
kind of transport (HTTP or HTTPS) and then delivers it using SMTP *is*
a gateway as defined in RFC 5321.
Sorry,
Les Mikesell wrote:
Transmitting an email via HTTP from a client computer qualifies
as gatewaying by my reading of the RFC.
That means you have to think my web browser is also an email gateway.
No. You misunderstand. The web *server* is the email gateway. It
gateways mail *from* the
On 2/17/2010 12:56 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Transmitting an email via HTTP from a client computer qualifies
as gatewaying by my reading of the RFC.
That means you have to think my web browser is also an email gateway.
No. You misunderstand. The web *server* is the email gateway. It
(Why do I get sucked in? :))
No. You misunderstand. The web *server* is the email gateway. It
gateways mail *from* the browser (using HTTP) *to* the Internet (using
SMTP).
Gateways need something on both sides to participate.
Yep. On one side: The Web browser. On the other side: The
On 2/17/2010 1:47 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
(Why do I get sucked in? :))
Because you would be equally pedantic if you thought someone else was
misinterpreting and abusing an RFC...
No. You misunderstand. The web *server* is the email gateway. It
gateways mail *from* the browser (using
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:47:53PM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
You and Gmail are the only ones with this interpretation. Other
Webmail providers (Yahoo, Hotmail) and Webmail software (Squirrelmail;
Horde) use my interpretation. So I submit that you are the one
interpreting the RFC oddly.
Les Mikesell wrote:
It is not a non-internet mail system running inside my browser - which
is what the RFC covers.
The RFC defines a gateway as this:
A gateway SMTP system (usually referred to just as a gateway)
receives mail from a client system in one transport environment and
On Jul 10, 9:23am, David F. Skoll wrote:
}
} No. You misunderstand. The web *server* is the email gateway. It
} gateways mail *from* the browser (using HTTP) *to* the Internet (using
} SMTP).
}
} Gateways need something on both sides to participate.
}
} Yep. On one side: The Web
On 2/17/2010 3:59 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
The RFC defines a gateway as this:
A gateway SMTP system (usually referred to just as a gateway)
receives mail from a client system in one transport environment and
transmits it to a server system in another transport environment.
Op 17 feb 2010, om 20:47 heeft David F. Skoll het volgende geschreven:
You and Gmail are the only ones with this interpretation.
And me too.
What I find lacking in this discussion is the reason why google would
do this. And I think I know why, because I'm tempted to do the same,
at least
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
[...]
I'm sure the information on the submitting IP isn't lost (hah, google
and deleting data??!), it's just not publicly available. Google will
surely dish up the info if they get abuse complaints. (... or a visit
from the feds. Or a request from a big law firm. Or
John Nemeth wrote:
} Yep. On one side: The Web browser. On the other side: The rest of
} the Internet. Why is that so hard to understand?
Yes, a web browser, not an MUA of any sort!
Really? Why isn't it an MUA? What part of the definition of an MUA
does composing mail in a Web
22 matches
Mail list logo
