Cal,
You got me there. I was rather upset over everyone's merciless treatment of
Ziad that I didn't pick your response out of my Inbox.
Nonetheless, I must take issue with your statement that I'm suggesting
anything that would "break" SMTP. In fact, if you read my post carefully,
you'll note that I am fully aware of what the RFCs say about the Sender:
field. I do not appreciate being directed to the SMTP source of my
messages; it is clear from the text of my post that I have gone over the
architecture and its alternatives in depth. The fact is that this is a
CLIENT issue, not a server issue -- as it is not present in Netscape
Messenger or in Outlook Express -- and yet, despite my well-supported
contention that there is something WRONG with Microsoft's MUA, I'm wondering
if there is a server-side workaround for this. It seems pretty clear that
there is not.
If you read the RFCs, you will also see that the Sender: field is intended
to provide "truer" authentication of the source of a message. As I
detailed, Imail's "list-owner" is far from a "truer" source, as it need not
exist. I believe THIS to be a broken implementation of SMTP -- the Sender:
field must be an address that exists, or it has no purpose at all except to
confuse users. No, not "power users" like the users of this list, but bear
in mind that we are mail *admins* as well. My users, yes, did complain.
Thanks for your response.
Sandy
-----Original Message-----
From: Cal Frye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, April 10, 2000 11:02 AM
Subject: FW: [IMail Forum] Outlook 2000 and Sender: field
>Well, actually, I did respond as follows:
>
>--Cal Frye, Western Reserve Academy, Hudson, Ohio
> "People accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them Ben Franklin
>said it first."
>
>You said:
>Troy,
>
>Thanks for replying. You were the only one -- I've been watching the list
>carefully.
>
>Sandy
>
>And I had originally said:
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cal Frye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 1:41 PM
>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Outlook 2000 and Sender: field
>
>
>Well, yes, I'm using Outlook 2K and I see it. In the inbox, the Sender:
>address appears, but in the preview panel, the From: address is used. So?
In
>the Inbox it shows the individual who sent the original ms., but the
message
>contains the correct From address, i.e. the list-owner account. If the From
>address were different, then the mail server would reject the ms. as not
>being from an authentic user. What you suggest would break (an important)
>part of spam control. I had bad enough troubles when I used a different
>account (on another server) in my Reply to field. not only with IMail but
>also with an AIX system (don't know what mail server they use). Those user
>fields gotta be local for the servers to know who is using the system.
>
>--Cal Frye, Western Reserve Academy, Hudson, Ohio
> "Do, or do not. There is no 'try'. " - Yoda ('The Empire Strikes Back')
>
>ps--In the header below, notice your ms. was from IMail_Forum-owner, on the
>behalf of the Sender, Sanford Whiteman. In my Inbox list, I see Sanford
>Whiteman. As a user, I can judge from there what to do with the message, no
>matter what the preview says. In fact, the "On Behalf of..." portion keeps
>the sender info active in there, which is helpful.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sanford
>Whiteman
>Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 12:26 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [IMail Forum] Outlook 2000 and Sender: field
>
>
>Hey, everyone...have you noticed this? In Outlook 2000, the Sender: value
>appears in the From: address in the following form:
>
> From: <sender:> on behalf of <from:>
>
>This is only visible in Message Preview and Message View modes, not in the
>Inbox itself.
>
>The problem is not present in Netscape 3.x and 4.x, nor in Outlook Express
>4.x and 5.x. I don't know about Eudora or other clients, but, in any case,
>this is a MAJOR problem for our organization, since we just moved to
Outlook
>2000. See, we reuse a series of generic mailing lists ("List1," "List2,"
>etc.) to get around having to dynamically create new mailing lists for
>one-off mailings, and use recipient impersonation via a friendly name:
>
> To: "Friendly Name" <genericlistname>
>
>It's a cool scheme, and one that I would have otherwise suggested to you
>all, except that under OL2K it breaks. Users are now asking, "Who's this
>'List79-owner' who keeps sending me messages?" Previously, the true list
>names would only be viewable in View Source mode, and we didn't consider
>that a problem, since internal users have no business questioning raw SMTP.
>But now, they *see* the field in general use, and our masquerade is undone.
>
>An additional note for the Ipswitch people: the SMTP RFCs specify that the
>Sender: field is appropriate if the server has a more reliable or "true"
>sender that it knows about. Many servers "x-" out the Sender: field
because
>they know that it can cause problems. In this case, I understand that
>Imailsrv.exe is really doing the sending, and that it thinks that the
>Mailing List owner is a more reliable sender than the From: address of the
>original post, so it will "x-" out any other Sender: fields and put in its
>own. But there's a logical issue here. Imailsrv puts a name like
>"List79-owner" in as the Sender: field without first checking to see if
that
>is a legit address. In fact, I can delete all of the "<listname>-owner"
and
>"owner-<listname>" aliases, and the server *still* thinks that
>"List79-owner" is a more reliable source than the From: address -- which in
>our organization is always a legitimate local user of the Imail server who
>has to (a) supply a password and (b) be on the POSTERS.LST to even use the
>list! Isn't that user a LOT more reliable as a Sender: field? I'd say
yes!
>
>Is there a workaround for this issue? Can anyone help?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Sandy
>
>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
>to be removed from this list.
>
>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
>to be removed from this list.
>
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
