William == William D Tallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:11:22PM +0900, Stephen
William J. Turnbull wrote:
I don't think that is the way that RFC writers in general
think.
William Yes, so I gather.
:-)
William Which means that people
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:33:29AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
William == William D Tallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
Well damn!!! I am genuinely impressed and appreciative of this
response! Have it saved off in a separate file to study. Mr. Turnbull
has my sincere thanks for his
William == William D Tallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William How does the RFC, or the writers thereof, define user?
They don't. IMHO (there are those more expert than I on this list)
anything that is normally expected to touch the headers or body of a
message is a user for the purpose of
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:11:22PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
William == William D Tallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William How does the RFC, or the writers thereof, define user?
They don't. IMHO (there are those more expert than I on this list)
anything that is normally
On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 18:16 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Neal Groothuis wrote:
Mailman is not the originator of the message, so it should
not be tampering with the From: or Sender: fields at all.
This is arguably not true. Mailman may add a list header and/or list
footer to the body of
On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 13:27 -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
I'd like to work up an unofficial diff to Mailman 2.1 for people like
Stephen who are willing to give it a try on a live site.
I'm not sure this is even necessary.
Ezmlm doesn't touch the Sender: header at all, Majordomo sets it
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 19:12 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
I think we need to gather a lot more information about the likely
outcome from this change, and I think the best way to achieve this is
through giving admins (either site admins or list admins) the ability
to set an option and
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 00:00 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Sender doesn't instruct *conformant* MTAs at all, does it? AFAIK the
only thing that a RFC 2821-conforming MTA looks at is the Return-Path
header, and it's supposed to remove that.
So this is purely a matter of pragmatic
I'd like to work up an unofficial diff to Mailman 2.1 for people like
Stephen who are willing to give it a try on a live site.
I'm not sure this is even necessary.
Ezmlm doesn't touch the Sender: header at all, Majordomo sets it to the
owner of the list, and (AFAICT) Listserv sets it to the
Watching this with interest; a newbie learns...
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:27:40PM -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
snip
It might be appropriate for Mailman to add Resent-* headers, depending
on how one reads RFC 2822, 3.6.6. I personally don't think it's
necessary or useful, since list
Neal Groothuis wrote:
Mailman is not the originator of the message, so it should
not be tampering with the From: or Sender: fields at all.
This is arguably not true. Mailman may add a list header and/or list
footer to the body of the message as well as potentially filtering or
scrubbing
Yes, and it still happens. Apparently, AOL has some filter based on a FROM:
address matching a specific list, and bounces it with an SPF error, which it
clearly is not.
Bob
-- Original Message ---
From: Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have you tried turning on full
Brad == Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 7:50 PM -0400 2006-04-28, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Whatever else we decide, I don't agree, or at least, it won't
help us. $3.6.6 says that Resent-* headers are to be added by
a user. It also says that these are purely informational
At 12:00 AM +0900 2006-04-30, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Brad If we need something that will be noticed by other MTAs
Brad beyond the envelope sender and the Return-Path:
Brad Errors-To: headers, then we're going to have to carefully
Brad think about this.
What's an
On 4/29/06 8:00 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sender doesn't instruct *conformant* MTAs at all, does it? AFAIK the
only thing that a RFC 2821-conforming MTA looks at is the Return-Path
header, and it's supposed to remove that.
There is no Return-Path: header during
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 22:46 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
If the previous value of the Sender: field is being lost, then
that should be corrected. At the very least, the value should be
saved in an Old-Sender: or Previous-Sender: or some other
suitable renamed sender field.
Probably
On 4/28/06 6:06 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 22:46 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
If the previous value of the Sender: field is being lost, then
that should be corrected. At the very least, the value should be
saved in an Old-Sender: or Previous-Sender: or
John W. Baxter wrote:
Probably, indeed. But what happens if that header was already taken in
the process that brought the message to mailman for distribution to the
list?
As I noted in my previous response, I believe that the correct field (if
Mailman were to add a Sender: header) to add
Don't forget to consider things like SPF, which I think uses the sender field.
Whatever is used for
SPF _must_ be the domain of the mailman box, or you're gonna run into a pack of
trouble.
...Trouble similar to a current problem I am having with AOL: they are bouncing
all email with the
Dallas Bethune wrote:
For our uses just
changing that list-bounces address to something less ominous looking
would help.
It definitely looks to me as if something needs to be done. I think
perhaps offering 3 options either to the list admin on a per-list
basis with a site default or just a
Now that I have a few minutes to breath ;) I'll try to summarize my
thoughts on this, and then perhaps go back later and follow up to
specific points later in the thread.
I'm sympathetic to ripping out the Sender: field munging. It was always
primarily a workaround for buggy MTAs. If the
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 13:05 -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
As I noted in my previous response, I believe that the correct field (if
Mailman were to add a Sender: header) to add would be Resent-Sender.
Please see RFC 2822, section 3.6.6.
Whatever else we decide, I don't agree, or at least,
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 14:08 -0400, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...Trouble similar to a current problem I am having with AOL: they are
bouncing all email with the
FROM: address of a specific AOL user, when mailman delivers the
messages to -any- aol or cs.com
address.
Have you tried
At 7:50 PM -0400 2006-04-28, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 13:05 -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
As I noted in my previous response, I believe that the correct field (if
Mailman were to add a Sender: header) to add would be Resent-Sender.
Please see RFC 2822, section 3.6.6.
24 matches
Mail list logo
