Re: [Nmh-workers] File upload frustration

[Neil W Rickert]

Scott Schwartz <address@hidden> wrote on Feb 2, 2004:

>| Return-Path isn't - that's only intended for mail delivery, messages should
>| never contain one of those until they're being delivered (and anyone who
>| believes they should should thank any mailer that corrects them).

>Letting users supply return-path is both reasonable and necessary.

It is both unnecessary and broken.

>On the one hand, your MTA is in charge of checking the input (because any
>user can talk directly to it.)  Mine (qmail) does, and so anything my MUA
>(MH) does is at best redundant.  But in this case MH is actively causing
>problems, because it isn't enforcing the correct rules.  qmail uses
>user-supplied return-path to set the envelope sender on outgoing messages
>(and removes the return-path header from the message.)  That's perfectly

nmh normally submits a message using smtp.

If qmail receives a message with smtp, and still sets the envelope
sender from the "Return-Path:", then qmail is broken.

We should not change nmh to make a special case that depends on
a particular broken MTA (if qmail is that broken).

If you really want to do something special, you can define your own
"postproc:" in your .mh_profile .  It could even be a shell script.
Use that to munge things for special purposes.  It doesn't belong in
the base code of nmh.

>                          I use it all the time to convince mailing list
>software that checks the envelope that I'm posting from the address they
>have on file, for example.  Similarly, if I complain about a spammer,
>I want my role account information to appear in the message, not any
>personal data that MH decides the spammer ought to know.

I manage to do this with the masquerading facilities already
present.

 -NWR