Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Bill Cole]

On 6 Dec 2016, at 22:40, John Levine wrote:

In article <5ef35d60-7f27-4b35-b2e8-53a20aa61...@blighty.com> you 
write:
I know there's no standard header for storing the envelope recipients 
for a message (for good reason, especially

when it comes to Bccs) but there are times when it's useful.

Does anyone know of a system that does that? I'm stashing them in 
"X-Rcpt-To" at the moment, for lack of anything
better, but if there's even a marginal ad-hoc standard for it I'd 
like to be consistent.


Oh, and some MTAs put them in Delivered-To: lines at the top of the 
message, after

the Return-Path:.


Technically I believe that is usually the final delivery address, after 
local rewrite/de-tag/alias transformations, NOT the original sender 
envelope. For example, my Postfix config adds these headers above its 
Received header for mail from this list:


Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com
Delivered-To: real.u...@hostname.not.exposed.in.public.scconsult.com

The X-Original-To address goes through 2 transformations to become the 
Delivered-To address, which wouldn't work for a non-local SMTP sender in 
any case.


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Bill Cole]

On 7 Dec 2016, at 5:08, David Hofstee wrote:

> The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648

Not entirely:

   This document generalizes from the experience of the email and SIP
   communities by doing the following:

   [...]
   4.  Makes no recommendation as to whether existing "X-" parameters
   ought to remain in use or be migrated to a format without the
   "X-"; this is a matter for the creators or maintainers of those
   parameters.


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Jim Popovitch]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Eric Henson  wrote:
> Just be aware that using XY will have you labeled as misogynist , XX will 
> have you labeled a SJW, and XXX will get you blocked by porn filters.
>
> :-)

Damn the world is complicated.  All I was thinking of was Pokémon.

-Jim P.

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Eric Henson]

Just be aware that using XY will have you labeled as misogynist , XX will have 
you labeled a SJW, and XXX will get you blocked by porn filters. 

:-)




Eric Henson
Server Team Manager
PFS
p: 972.881.2900  x 3104
m: 972.948.3424
www.pfsweb.com

-Original Message-
From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 12:55 PM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Cc: jim...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

>> Really, if you need to invent a header, just invent one and don't 
>> pretend that anyone told you to use a X- name.
>
>So you can choose any name you want as long as it doesn't start with
>X- ?   :-)I'm going to start naming headers XY- just because it's
>allowed by RFCs.

Hey, this is the Internet.  If you want to do something pointless or silly, not 
only can you do it, but you can live stream it and monetize it.

R's,
John

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[John Levine]

>> Really, if you need to invent a header, just invent one and don't
>> pretend that anyone told you to use a X- name.
>
>So you can choose any name you want as long as it doesn't start with
>X- ?   :-)I'm going to start naming headers XY- just because it's
>allowed by RFCs.

Hey, this is the Internet.  If you want to do something pointless or
silly, not only can you do it, but you can live stream it and monetize
it.

R's,
John

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Brandon Long via mailop]

On Dec 7, 2016 9:27 AM, "Jim Popovitch"  wrote:

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, John Levine  wrote:
>>5.  Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use
>>of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name"
>>token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those
>>protocols.
>>
>>So, X headers are still the way to go it seems for SMTP..
>
> Perhaps you missed this part of RFC 6648:
>
>As explained more fully under Appendix A, this convention was
>encouraged for many years in application protocols such as file
>transfer, email, and the World Wide Web.  In particular, it was
>codified for email by [RFC822] (via the distinction between
>"Extension-fields" and "user-defined-fields"), but then removed by
>[RFC2822] based on implementation and deployment experience.
>
> Really, if you need to invent a header, just invent one and don't
> pretend that anyone told you to use a X- name.


So you can choose any name you want as long as it doesn't start with
X- ?   :-)I'm going to start naming headers XY- just because it's
allowed by RFCs.


http://m.imgur.com/gallery/mSHi8

Brando
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Jim Popovitch]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, John Levine  wrote:
>>5.  Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use
>>of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name"
>>token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those
>>protocols.
>>
>>So, X headers are still the way to go it seems for SMTP..
>
> Perhaps you missed this part of RFC 6648:
>
>As explained more fully under Appendix A, this convention was
>encouraged for many years in application protocols such as file
>transfer, email, and the World Wide Web.  In particular, it was
>codified for email by [RFC822] (via the distinction between
>"Extension-fields" and "user-defined-fields"), but then removed by
>[RFC2822] based on implementation and deployment experience.
>
> Really, if you need to invent a header, just invent one and don't
> pretend that anyone told you to use a X- name.


So you can choose any name you want as long as it doesn't start with
X- ?   :-)I'm going to start naming headers XY- just because it's
allowed by RFCs.

-Jim P.

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[John Levine]

>5.  Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use
>of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name"
>token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those
>protocols.
>
>So, X headers are still the way to go it seems for SMTP..

Perhaps you missed this part of RFC 6648:

   As explained more fully under Appendix A, this convention was
   encouraged for many years in application protocols such as file
   transfer, email, and the World Wide Web.  In particular, it was
   codified for email by [RFC822] (via the distinction between
   "Extension-fields" and "user-defined-fields"), but then removed by
   [RFC2822] based on implementation and deployment experience. 

Really, if you need to invent a header, just invent one and don't
pretend that anyone told you to use a X- name.


R's,
John

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Michael Peddemors]

On 16-12-07 07:58 AM, Ned Freed wrote:



/me is going to go with Envelope-To, as it's going to be the easiest to
explain to users "this is from the envelope at SMTP delivery time, not the To:
or Cc: or anywhere else".


FWIW, we chose the closely related X-Envelope-To: for this function many years
ago. (At the time best practice was to use X- prefixes on nonstandard headers.)

If we were doing it today we'd use Envelope-To:.

Ned

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop



Probably better directed to the IETF, but based on the comments in that 
RFC about deprecating X- headers (which I too do not understand why), it 
looks to specifically point this out to those designing 'new' protocols, 
and it points out that those protocol designers should maintain a list 
of 'extensions'..


However, I think you missing something in that RFC..

5.  Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use
   of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name"
   token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those
   protocols.

So, X headers are still the way to go it seems for SMTP..

PS, we use ..

X-MagicMail-Original-Destination:

To preserve the original RCPT TO, presented during SMTP mail 
transaction, for later local processing.


Why? so that all headers with the same prefix are easily identifiable 
for removal, if they already exist during the SMTP mail transaction.


eg.. remove all X-MagicMail headers..

Point being, remember that certain headers SHOULD/MAY be 
removed/replaced by the MTA, so when choosing a header for your purpose, 
you should remember that aspect of recording data.





--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."

Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic

A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.

604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[John R Levine]

Legitimate eXtension headers as X- are easily filtered as "this is something 
you shouldn't pay attention to because it's not part of any standard".  Take 
away the X- and you go back to the 'ok what is legitimate and what is not' 
situation...


Oh, that's easy.  They're all legitimate.  If you're wondering which ones 
have some sort of standards status, you can look here but you'll find a 
lot of dusty old experiments that nobody really uses.


http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xml

Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Ned Freed]

> /me is going to go with Envelope-To, as it's going to be the easiest to
> explain to users "this is from the envelope at SMTP delivery time, not the To:
> or Cc: or anywhere else".

FWIW, we chose the closely related X-Envelope-To: for this function many years
ago. (At the time best practice was to use X- prefixes on nonstandard headers.)

If we were doing it today we'd use Envelope-To:.

Ned

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[John Levine]

In article <584815fc.40...@sorbs.net> you write:
>David Hofstee wrote:
>> The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648
>>
>Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one...

If you read the document, you'd know that it said that if people actually
use an X- header it's too hard to change it, and there's not exactly a
shortage of ASCII strings one could use for header names, so if you need
to make up a name, just make one up and don't use X-.

R's,
John

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Gilles Chehade via mailop]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:00:28AM +1000, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> David Hofstee wrote:
> > The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648
> > 
> Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one...
> 
> :/
> 

wow, missed that one :-/


-- 
Gilles Chehade

https://www.poolp.org  @poolpOrg

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Michelle Sullivan]

David Hofstee wrote:

The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648


Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one...

:/

Michelle

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Tony Finch]

John Levine  wrote:
>
> Oh, and some MTAs put them in Delivered-To: lines at the top of the
> message, after the Return-Path:.

Or Envelope-To:

http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-message_processing.html#SECID225

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch    http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Humber, Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth: South or southwest 5 to 7,
decreasing 4 at times. Slight or moderate, occasionally rough in Portland and
Plymouth. Rain, fog patches in Plymouth. Moderate or poor, occasionally very
poor in Plymouth.

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[David Hofstee]

The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648

Met vriendelijke groet,


David Hofstee

Deliverability Management
MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP)

- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "John Levine" <jo...@taugh.com>
Aan: mailop@mailop.org
Cc: st...@blighty.com
Verzonden: Woensdag 7 december 2016 04:40:30
Onderwerp: Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

In article <5ef35d60-7f27-4b35-b2e8-53a20aa61...@blighty.com> you write:
>I know there's no standard header for storing the envelope recipients for a 
>message (for good reason, especially
>when it comes to Bccs) but there are times when it's useful.
>
>Does anyone know of a system that does that? I'm stashing them in "X-Rcpt-To" 
>at the moment, for lack of anything
>better, but if there's even a marginal ad-hoc standard for it I'd like to be 
>consistent.

Oh, and some MTAs put them in Delivered-To: lines at the top of the message, 
after
the Return-Path:.

R's,
John

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[John Levine]

In article <5ef35d60-7f27-4b35-b2e8-53a20aa61...@blighty.com> you write:
>I know there's no standard header for storing the envelope recipients for a 
>message (for good reason, especially
>when it comes to Bccs) but there are times when it's useful.
>
>Does anyone know of a system that does that? I'm stashing them in "X-Rcpt-To" 
>at the moment, for lack of anything
>better, but if there's even a marginal ad-hoc standard for it I'd like to be 
>consistent.

Oh, and some MTAs put them in Delivered-To: lines at the top of the message, 
after
the Return-Path:.

R's,
John

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[John Levine]

In article <5ef35d60-7f27-4b35-b2e8-53a20aa61...@blighty.com> you write:
>I know there's no standard header for storing the envelope recipients for a 
>message (for good reason, especially
>when it comes to Bccs) but there are times when it's useful.

If it's a single recipient, it's the "for" clause in the Received
header.  See RFC 5321 section 4.4.  If there are multiple recipients,
section 7.2 tells you not to log them, but is otherwise unhelpful.

R's,
John



___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Michael Peddemors]

On 16-12-06 06:37 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:

I know there's no standard header for storing the envelope recipients for a 
message (for good reason, especially when it comes to Bccs) but there are times 
when it's useful.

Does anyone know of a system that does that? I'm stashing them in "X-Rcpt-To" 
at the moment, for lack of anything better, but if there's even a marginal ad-hoc 
standard for it I'd like to be consistent.

Cheers,
  Steve


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop



Storing all of them isn't really the job of the headers IMHO..

And if you do, you better quickly figure out some MAX_RECIPS ;)

Storing/Preserving the original intended recipient is of course..

And some mail processing systems, the recipient lists 'change' during 
the course of delivery..


And you might like to explain your concept of 'envelope recipients' just 
to be clear...


And it might help if you defined 'why' you want this data stored?





--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."

Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic

A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.

604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

[Steve Atkins]

I know there's no standard header for storing the envelope recipients for a 
message (for good reason, especially when it comes to Bccs) but there are times 
when it's useful.

Does anyone know of a system that does that? I'm stashing them in "X-Rcpt-To" 
at the moment, for lack of anything better, but if there's even a marginal 
ad-hoc standard for it I'd like to be consistent.

Cheers,
  Steve


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop