On 13/Jun/10 18:07, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 6/13/2010 1:00 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
The explanation given in RFC 5598 is much wider, but still doesn't cover
fetchmail, because of the envelope changes. It references RFC 1506 for
the term "MTA". However, the latter RFC does not give a formal
definition either.
I've changed the Subject line, for some meager differentiation from the
wg charter-related discussion that prompted this. But I'm feeling
obligated to ask you to elaborate.
To be pedantic and perhaps even thorough:
1. Can you give a very brief summary of the scenario that fetchmail
provides that you believe needs to be covered and is not (and for what
definition, exactly)?
I don't have strong beliefs about fetchmail's MTA-ness. Raymond used
to hold that "Fetchmail is an MTA", which may conflict with a strict
definition of that term. I don't know whether the apparent retraction
of that position in its current manual stems from reconsideration or
wording convenience.
2. What text, in particular, is wrong with respect to the case you cite,
or what functionality needs to be covered and is not?
Fetchmail changes the envelope recipient when it relays retrieved
messages to the target MTA. RFC 5598, section 4.3.2, says "it does
not change addresses in the envelope", which implies fetchmail is not
an MTA.
According to RFC 5598, fetchmail is a Mediator. Unfortunately, that
term isn't widely used in such technical acceptation.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
