Subject: | |
From: | Phil Howard <PHIL@UIUCVMD> |
Reply To: | Revised LISTSERV forum <LSTSRV-L@DEARN> |
Date: | Thu, 28 Jan 88 21:26:50 CST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> RFC # 822
> 4.4.2. SENDER / RESENT-SENDER
> 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO
Here is the catchy part:
> o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of
> any problems in transport or delivery of the original
> messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the
> "From" field mailbox should be used.
What 822 does is in effect bundle two different roles together.
Role 1 is the person (or process) that actually transmitted the message.
Role 2 is the person (or process) that handles the notices of problems.
I see that in some cases, these roles would need DIFFERENT mail addresses
yet there is no way to specify two different addresses. One (but not the
only) solution is a new header to account for the difference. It will
require a CHANGE to RFC822, not just a registered extension. THAT is what
makes this so hard, and that is why there will be a lot of resistance to it.
That assumes that a REJECT-TO field or something like it be used.
What if instead we want to have SENDER point to LISTSERV and use something
like NEWSGROUPS? Again a potential problem exists because we cannot be
sure that an uncivilized mailer will not send something that looks like
a LISTSERV command to LISTSERV. Even RFC822 admits there are bad mailers.
I think the SENDER field is essentially useless as it is (ambiguous).
|
|
|