Re: Question about Sender

"Steven W. Orr" <[email protected]> Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
Newsgroups gmane.mail.majordomo.majordomo2.devel
Organization SysLang
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Saturday, Oct 13th 2007 at 22:23 -0000, quoth John L:

=>> > 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.
=>

I just added the patch to my setup. I'm hopeful that this won't bork 
anything else up, but assuming it's ok, can we just set this up as a 
configurable parameter for those who like getting tons of misdirected mail 
to $OWNER ?

Also, I just have to ask this: Are all of the mailers that do stoopid 
stuff with Sender all come from uSoft?

-- 
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have  .0.
happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0
Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000
individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question?
steveo at syslang.net