[moved to tmda-workers where it's more appropriate] Gre7g Luterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was talking about an RFC that would standardize a way to avoid the > situation described in FAQ 4.5. [...] > X-TAGGED-EMAIL-ADDRESS: <some address> > > and then expect compliant filters to use the given address (if > present) in their filtering and any auto-add mechanism, instead of > the envelope address, from address, reply-to address, etc. OK, I see what you are saying now, and think it's a good idea. I had mistakenly thought you were advocating letting the user determine where auto-replies would be directed through a header, instead of always replying to the envelope sender address. Does the following jive with what you had in mind? Change TMDA so that if an incoming message contains an ``X-TMDA-From'' header, it will CONFIRM_APPEND that address instead of the Return-Path address when the message is confirmed. Also, change TMDA so that it checks the address in ``X-TMDA-From'' against FILTER_INCOMING along with the envelope sender, From and Reply-To. Essentially this just gives the user a mechanism to specify what address he prefers be whitelisted. This should allow me to send fully 'dated' mail if I want, yet still get ``[EMAIL PROTECTED]'' added to other TMDA user's whitelists. Now the problem discussed in FAQ 4.5 is a non-issue. ``X-TMDA-From'' is just an example name, it could be made more general so that other C/R systems could adopt it. What do others think of the idea? _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
