On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:59:14 +0200, "Sebastian Spaeth" <Sebastian at SSpaeth.de> wrote: > On 2010-04-07, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > > > > The previous code made too many assumptions about the (sadly not > > standardized) format of the Received headers. This version should > > be more robust to deal with different variations. > > This code might be useful for some, but I know it is not being useful > for me. I use e.g. dreamhost.com as my mail provider and I never have my > email domain name show up after the Received: by ..... > See my Received headers for your message below.
That's the funny thing about heuristics - they are always based on the cases the author has access to. I run my own mail servers and they put in useful Received lines. Dreamhost doesn't appear to do that - I'm sure there are many other scenarios that I don't handle, yet. Please keep them coming. > On the other hand, it contains "for <sebastian at sspaeth.de>" stating the > intended email address explicitely. IMHO, we should use this before we > start some hand-wavy guessing. > > Also, I have the "X-Original-To: sebastian at sspaeth.de" header. Is that > something that we could make use of before starting to guess? It's complicated. Some MTAs put in bogux "for <user at localhost>" or "for UID 1000" into Received headers. I haven't seen any incorrect "X-Original-To" headers, but wouldn't be surprised to see those be faked or wrong, either. Right now my plan is to do something like this: 1) look for my email address in To/Cc 2) look for my email in "for <email at add.res>" in Received headers 3) look for my email in X-Original-To 4) look for the domain of my email in Received headers (not just 1st) 5) punt and use default email address Does that sound sane? (and thanks for sending the headers - this really helps... can others for whom the current code or the logic mentioned above wouldn't work send their headers, too, please?) /D -- Dirk Hohndel Intel Open Source Technology Center