Re: Question about Sender

>> There's no reason that the two have to be the same, and one can
>> make a reasonable case that the correct thing to put in the Sender:
>> header from the point of view of RFC compliance is the list
>> address.

> Other people have argued for using the list owner's address, or for
> using Resent-Sender for that purpose instead. RFC 2822 seems
> ambiguous. Is there a more recent document that clarifies this
> issue?

There's Pete Resnick's draft-resnick-2822upd-03.txt but that's just a
draft, not yet approved as standards track.  Its wording is currently
unchanged from RFC 2822:

    The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox of the agent responsible
    for the actual transmission of the message.  For example, if a
    secretary were to send a message for another person, the mailbox of
    the secretary would appear in the "Sender:" field and the mailbox of
    the actual author would appear in the "From:" field.  If the
    originator of the message can be indicated by a single mailbox and
    the author and transmitter are identical, the "Sender:" field
    SHOULD NOT be used.  Otherwise, both fields SHOULD appear.

The problem is that different MUAs do different things with the
Sender: field, ranging from the sensible to the ridiculous.  My
inclination is to let list owners do whatever they want, since there's
little basis to argue that whatever they do is wrong.

Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.