On 4/14/2022 2:09 PM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Dave Crocker via mailop <[email protected]> said:
On 4/14/2022 1:27 PM, John Levine via mailop wrote:
Is anyone aware of any mail system that implements Delivered-To
the way this document describes,
Your query, to this list arrived at my inbox with these header fields:
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: from mx.mailop.org (mx.mailop.org [91.132.147.157])
by gcp-europe-west4-b-smtpin5.hostinger.io (mx.hostinger.com) with
ESMTPS id 4KfWJZ1H9Sz9v9X5
Without knowing what mail software your provider is running, there is
no way to tell.
The benefit of an over-the-wire approach to specification writing is
that all that matters is what goes... over the wire. One does not need
to know the 'intent' or 'thinking' or who the source is, or whatever
about the source of the data that goess over the wire. One merely needs
to know what goes over the wire, and compare it to what is in the
specification.
So, the question remains: In what way does the example I provided
deviate from what is specified in the RFC?
As we explained at length last year when you were writing this draft,
Postfix and other mail systems put a loop breaking token in
Delivered-To. Sometimes it matches the envelope address, sometimes it
does not. The detail that it may look like a mailbox does not mean
that it is a mailbox.
As I explained in your similar challenge today on another list, that's
covered in the specification:
Section 4, second bullet
> If a receiving system's delivery process applies mappings or
> transformations from the address used by the MHS to a local value,
> this new value SHOULD also be recorded into a separate Delivered-To:
> field when transit and processing using that address successfully
> complete. This ensures a detailed record of the sequence of handling
> addresses used for the message.
covers that form of string.
If you think better wording should have been used, perhaps you can point
to the place in the discussion archive where you suggested it? I made
quite a few changes, in response to many suggestions. I'm not recalling
one, about this, from you.
The code in Postfix, qmail, and Courier and the spec are available to
anyone who cares to look at them and has been for well over a decade.
That's nice. How is this point relevant here?
I'm not going to waste more time on this now.
Thanks.
d/
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
