Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 01:04:51AM +0100, Pigeon wrote: >> Eh? I meant he's sending everything _from_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] sure, >> if he was sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED] we wouldn't be having this >> discussion :-) > > OK, but I'm not entirely convinced he's sending a host, which is why > everybody's local mail server is adding in the host part.
I've seen some hints of "@localhost" in the email I got. I sent email to Kevin about two weeks ago asking him to fix it. Since it hasn't been fixed yet, and he never answered, I just assumed he didn't care. I don't know about standard exim configurations, but my sendmail configuration (on a NetBSD box, built using the standard macros) does look for "@localhost" and converts it. So I think it's a standard part of the sendmail config. I think it's a misconfiguration problem in multiple places. * Kevin's mail software (Ximian Evolution, talking directly to his ISP? if there's a local MTA it's not in the Received headers) shouldn't be sending out such headers. * His ISP's software (Exim) could be more intelligent about detecting misconfigured clients. Since it's an ISP, and they probably don't care much about a pesky little thing like this, the easiest approach might be to get a fix in upstream so they'll get it next time they update their software. * One could make an argument that Debian's mailer or list processor should require valid addresses, but that might be a tough argument to sell, especially for lists where one might turn for help in fixing just this problem. Perhaps messages could be bounced with an error message including a URL with advice? In some lists, support for anonymity is important. So bouncing invalid addresses in general probably isn't right. (Maybe for Debian lists it doesn't matter except as a spam defense, but changing the list software in general wouldn't be right for these other lists.) But what about just bouncing from/sender/reply-to fields with @localhost, or with any unqualified hostname? * Our receiving mailers (mine's Sendmail) probably shouldn't be doing that transformation for mail coming from off the local machine. Perhaps sticking in "@INVALID" or "@NOFQDN" would be better. Given the wide variety of mail configurations out there, would it be at all practical to make the popular Debian mailers difficult to configure to send email without FQDNs in the headers to internet hosts at large, while still presumably allowing smarthost forwarding with unqualified names? Not impossible, if someone really insists on it and knows why it's the wrong thing to do; just difficult. I suspect Kevin wasn't intentionally trolling for accusations of email forgery when he set up his mail client. Given that my mail server is an old NetBSD box, and I don't use Exim or Evolution, I'm probably not the best person to submit bug reports or enhancement requests against these programs asking for such changes, 'cuz I can't verify all of them in a Debian mail system or verify when they've been fixed. But if someone else wants to, feel free.... Ken -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
