Viktor,
>>Even on an MSA the "To:" address may list multiple recipients, which one
>>becomes "Resent-From:"? What happens when the "To:" is a list in your
>>>>organization rather than a public list?
>>What you're proposing is not viable, and seems to serve no purpose.
>>You should explain the problem you're trying to solve by adding these, rather
>>than the problems you're having doing so.
When the message hit our outbound Postfix servers, on an MSA the "To:" address
only list one recipient. We do not need consider multiple recipients.
The problem is next HOP - Microsoft antispam system due to their bugs is eating
some outbound emails from non-osu.edu or non-ohio-state.edu senders to
forwarding accounts. But their system does not eat the emails which are
"Resent-From" from mailbox users ("Resent-From:" is appropriate when a user
takes a message delivered to his mailbox (possibly long after initial delivery)
and resends it to another user (typically not an original recipient). Our
exchange engineers ask whether Postfix can add "Resent-From: <original to
address>" for emails to forwarding accounts like mailbox accounts resent the
emails to bypass Microsoft antispam system (this is one of all kinds attempts).
Thanks,
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Viktor Dukhovni
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 5:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How to fetch From address from header via Postfix head_check?
On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 08:59:44PM +0000, Xie, Wei wrote:
> If you include mailing list, in general "The To: header does not
> represent the recipient of a message.".
Also when a message is Bcc'd by the sender.
> Now, we only need to consider the simple example below because the
> messages related to mailing lists do not hit our outbound Postfix
> servers.
Even on an MSA the "To:" address may list multiple recipients, which one
becomes "Resent-From:"? What happens when the "To:" is a list in your
organization rather than a public list?
What you're proposing is not viable, and seems to serve no purpose.
You should explain the problem you're trying to solve by adding these, rather
than the problems you're having doing so.
--
Viktor.
