lyndon wrote: > But there is another issue that we need to address. Envelope-From: > is a valid message header. It's remotely conceivable that someone > might have a need to use it for another purpose. And there are > other SMTP parameters that it might be useful to set, e.g.: > deliver-by. I don't like the idea of co-opting yet more headers > out of the 822 namespace for this.
is there any technical reason that the proposed Envelope-From: header functionality simply be named "Return-path:"? since i assume MH will remove this header (whatever we call it) from the draft before submitting to SMTP, i wouldn't think there's a conflict. (other SMTP directives could still be done with syntax something like that proposed by lyndon.) paul > > I would prefer to build these non-822 directives using a syntax that can't > be > confused with a valid 822 header. I suggest the format: > > metahead = "." directive *(SP params) > directive = LETTER *(LETTER / DIGIT / "-") > params = ; free-form text to the end of line > > In the new syntax the above example would be written as: > > From: [email protected] > Sender: [email protected] > .mail-from [email protected] > > Post would strip out all the .foo meta-headers. Since these headers will be > specific to the backend transport I would suggest ignoring ones unknown to > the > backend, and giving the backend the ability to print warnings, or abort the > send, if there are problems processing a recognized directive. > > --lyndon > > > _______________________________________________ > Nmh-workers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers =--------------------- paul fox, [email protected] (arlington, ma, where it's 67.6 degrees) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
