Re: Who sets Sender:?

["Bjørn Mork" <bmork@dod.no>]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:
> * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)  on Wed, 22 May 2002
> | You're answering this question: "in what cases should the MUA guess
> | whether Sender is needed?"  That isn't the question I asked.
>
> I answered -that- question in one of my earliest posts: if the From field
> is not user@host.domain.  That was right before I pointed out that this is
> a religious debate.

And the reason for this being a religious debate is such strong
beliefs for no apparent reason. There is nothing other than a
religiously confused mind that can make "originator", "author" or
"transmitter" become "user@host.domain".

If I were to state my beliefs, I would say that the intented meaning
of this section is that a Sender never should be added as long as the
_person_ writing the message and the _person_ entering the message
into the mail transport are the same:

   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. 

Which would make the current Gnus default a violation of RFC2822.

> [...]
> | Will that incorrectness ever cause problems?
>
> Potentially, yes.  Received headers will tell you the route a message has
> taken, but it will not necessarilly tell you anything about the humans
> involved.

Which is a problem for whom/what?

> | A wrong guess in the other direction can cause problems.  "Correct" isn't
> | always the best thing to be.
>
> A wrong guess in the other direction will not cause problems unless someone
> violates RFC 2822 and misuses Sender.

Which I hope everybody can agree is a real problem today. Buggy MUAs
use the Sender for replies, and buggy mailing list software refuse
messages unless the Sender is subscribed.

One can either be a religious fanatic, or try to adapt as much as
possible within the _actual_ RFC requirements.


Bjørn
-- 
I mean, most Nicaraguan people have computers .