Hi all, On 14 Dec 2007 at 18:41, Alex van den Bogaerdt <[email protected]> said:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:13:58PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote: > > > > To stress: The first and second are very similar, but they are not the > > > same and I think the differences are important. > > > > In which case we should continue to use the term "alias" for type 1, and > > we should continue to discourage type 2a lists that don't change the > > return path. > > Indeed. [EMAIL PROTECTED] can automatically unsubscribe > me should my email address become unreachable. Someone posting to > this list cannot, and thus has no use for bounces, out of office > messages, delivery notifications and what more. I just asked mail.imc.org to expand [EMAIL PROTECTED] It reports one member, majordomo - the processor and the resubmitter. In which case, why do DSNs for mail to this address show as delivery to a mailing list (in the sendmail alias-of-more-than-one-destination sense)? I know this is probably an implementation detail, but it seems to me that sendmail ought to be delivering mail to a mailbox under the current 2821 reading of what an alias-based mailing list is. Perhaps some other characteristic of an alias sets off a sendmail-specific behaviour (the owner-x syntax?) but in this case it's programmatically annoying since some directly wired tools given aliases from the mailer (like Ecartis, for which addresses of lists seem to show up as mailboxes at most sendmail sites running it) need the return path to be accurate the whole time. The bouncer processor in Ecartis, for instance, simply can't work without a valid "From [EMAIL PROTECTED] date" line, but does the SMTP loopback connection thing itself in order to prepare new submissions. Cheers, Sabahattin -- Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail<at>sabahattin<dash>gucukoglu<dot>com> Address harvesters, snag this: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +44 20 88008915 Mobile: +44 7986 053399 http://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/
