On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Mads Kiilerich <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/14/2015 09:05 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: >> >> Hi Mads, >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Mads Kiilerich <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Anyway, how about a first patch that refactors and consistently renames >>> "mail_from" to "envelope_from" (which seems to be the right technical >>> term >>> for what it is), and then another patch for setting "header_from" (or >>> reuse >>> mail_from). >> >> After further investigation, I don't think that 'envelope_from' is the >> right term. The envelope is something _around_ the message, the >> message being the contents _and_ the headers. These headers include >> both From: and Sender: >> There exist indeed the possibility of having an envelope sender, but >> this is not what we're dealing with here. > > > Ok. Then I guess the code & patch it could use some further clarification > for dummies ;-) > > I haven't really digged into this since RFC 821 and 822 still applied, but I > guess it is essential > * that we still have a way to configure what sender is used when delivering > over SMTP (and thus where bounces will go)
I don't understand what you're suggesting here... > * that we don't start setting sender in a way that interferes with the > normal delivery process I don't understand this either... > * that we don't make our mails more likely to be caught in spam prevention > filters > > A first safe step might be just change the "name" part of the from (and > sender?) headers based on who triggered the mail, without changing any > actual addresses. How do you know that this is 'safe' ? Are you sure that a spam filter may not be more suspicious by seeing the same e-mail address sending mail under different names? /Thomas _______________________________________________ kallithea-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
