On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 18:29, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FYI, RFCs 5321 and 5322 "obsolete" 2821 and 2822 (respectively).
Again there's no mention of Delivered-To header for loop detection.
Did you spot anything useful there?
Regards,
Andrzej Kukula
Andrzej Kukula wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 18:29, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FYI, RFCs 5321 and 5322 "obsolete" 2821 and 2822 (respectively).
Again there's no mention of Delivered-To header for loop detection.
loop detection is not part of smtp.
Did you spot anything useful there?
On 10/2/08, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrzej Kukula wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 18:29, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > FYI, RFCs 5321 and 5322 "obsolete" 2821 and 2822 (respectively).
> > >
> >
> > Again there's no mention of Delivered-To header for loop detection.
> >
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 01:27:46PM -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
> "Delivered to" could be mentioned by the RFC, as well as
No reason to, it has no end-to-end semantics. The only valid consumer
of "Delivered-To" is the system that added it. The header could be:
X-Loop-COM-EXAMPLE:
an
mouss:
> Andrzej Kukula wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 18:29, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> FYI, RFCs 5321 and 5322 "obsolete" 2821 and 2822 (respectively).
> >
> > Again there's no mention of Delivered-To header for loop detection.
>
> loop detection is not part of smtp.
>
> > Did yo
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Victor Duchovni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 01:27:46PM -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
>
>> "Delivered to" could be mentioned by the RFC, as well as
>
> No reason to, it has no end-to-end semantics. The only valid consumer
> of "Delivered-
Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
On 10/2/08, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrzej Kukula wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 18:29, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FYI, RFCs 5321 and 5322 "obsolete" 2821 and 2822 (respectively).
Again there's no mention of Delivered-To header for loop detection.
Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
"Don't need" but "could be". The standards *could be suggest*
something about loop detection.
only if you can get consensus, which is much harder than you might
think. while almost everybody now agrees that putting the envelope
recipient in a header (except for m
"Reinaldo de Carvalho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Victor Duchovni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 01:27:46PM -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>> "Delivered to" could be mentioned by the RFC, as well as
>>
>> No reason to, it has no e
