[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to post
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:57:43 -0400

>[ i tried to send this before, but something went wrong, and ken's
>moving so fast these days, i feel compelled to resend asap. :-) ]

You say that like it's a bad thing! :-)

>    - if there are multiple addresses in From:, then require at least
>        one of Envelope-From: or Sender:.  create a Sender: from
>        Envelope-From: if necessary, to satisfy the RFC.
>    - Choose the SMTP envelope header from
>        1) Envelope-From:
>        2) Sender:   (no "iff" -- i don't think there's a need for that)
>        3) From:

Hm.  You know, I like this (and it seems that there is widespread agreement
that Sender: should always override From:).

There is one wrinkle: Right now Envelope-From: can be blank; if you
do that, then you will get a MAIL FROM:<>, which is useful if you
don't want any bounces at all.  Sounds like the logic should be if
you have multiple From: addresses then Envelope-From: cannot be
blank.  Actually, now that I think about it I might have written the
code that Sender can be blank, so I should fix that :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]