Re: CONFIRM_ADDRESS Not Working?

On 25 May 2011, at 17:53, Kevin Goodsell wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I configure my mailer (Apple Mail) to send out mail
>> through tmda-ofmipd with a newly added rule in my filters/outgoing
>> file:
>> 
>> to *@bugs.debian.org tag from bare=append envelope bare reply-to dated resent-from bare
>> 
>> But now, when I send mail purporting to come from my SF account, an
>> entry like this in my outgoing log, and the corresponding headers in
>> email which is rendered unrepliable, results:
>> 
>> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 00:20:10 +0100
>> XPri: [email protected]
>> From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[email protected]>
>> Rept: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[email protected]>
>>  To: [email protected]
>> Subj: Re: Bug#626427: linux-image-2.6.38-2-686: Horrible Time Skew, Eventual Near-zero Responsiveness
>> Actn: to *@bugs.debian.org tag envelope bare reply-to dated from bare=append resent-from bare(1332)
>> 
>> Can anybody explain this?  I thought that is what CONFIRM_ADDRESS is
>> for.  Besides, which of the sender addresses is it using to derive the
>> tagged address from, the envelope sender or the From: field?
> 
> I don't see what CONFIRM_ADDRESS has to do with this. Confirmation
> messages don't seem to be involved in the question, and that's the only
> occasion where CONFIRM_ADDRESS is used.

OK, I've obviously made one assumption too many again.  I just assumed that variable was the template for all addresses generated, which would work for confirmation addresses also.  (FWIW, I actually think this is a good use for that variable.)

> Tagged addresses are generated based on the From: address. The only
> exceptions I can see are if the mail has a Resent-From header, in which
> case that address is used instead (this has other effects that I'm not
> sure about), or if there is neither a From nor a Resent-From header, in
> which case the address to base tagged addresses on is constructed from
> USERNAME and HOSTNAME.

Right, OK.  So if I explicitly put a Reply-To header into the message being rewritten, will it still get treatment the way it is if it doesn't exist, or will the Reply-To field's contents be used as the template?  Reading you literally again, making no assumptions this time, the answer is that it's going to be rewritten as above, not as desired.  (That, also, could be fixed.)

> This is one of many areas of TMDA's functioning that I can't say is
> obviously right or wrong. It kind of seems like tagged addresses should
> be based on one specific address most of the time, regardless of what
> you feel like sticking in any particular email header.

Principle of least surprise.  It's what I expected.  Of course, it's also possible to turn this into a feature as well, as described.  My "Vote" is for an "Address template", to be applied wherever rewriting happens and there is no address, else rewrite with the existing address.

Cheers,
Sabahattin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security.
With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, 
you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection.
Download your free trial now. 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
tmda-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users