* Mail without `From:' lines @ 1996-05-03 11:45 Kai Grossjohann 1996-05-03 18:31 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Kai Grossjohann @ 1996-05-03 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi, if an incoming mail message does not have a `From:' line (only `From ' which is `X-From-Line:' after nnml munges it), the summary buffer shows `nobody' as sender. Reply doesn't work, either. WIBNI Gnus were to use the information from X-From-Line in lieu of the missing `From ' line? Happens both with Gnus 5.1 and Sgnus 0.80 on Emacs 19.30 I think. kai -- Gleep! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-03 11:45 Mail without `From:' lines Kai Grossjohann @ 1996-05-03 18:31 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 1996-05-03 22:58 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-03 23:11 ` Sudish Joseph 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 1996-05-03 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai Grossjohann <grossjoh@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> writes: > WIBNI Gnus were to use the information from X-From-Line in lieu of the > missing `From ' line? This is on the Red Gnus todo list. Or rather, the mail backends will fudge a missing From: header from the "From " separator. -- "Yes. The journey through the human heart would have to wait until some other time." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-03 18:31 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 1996-05-03 22:58 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-06 8:44 ` Kai Grossjohann 1996-05-03 23:11 ` Sudish Joseph 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-03 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes: > Kai Grossjohann <grossjoh@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> writes: > > WIBNI Gnus were to use the information from X-From-Line in lieu of the > > missing `From ' line? > > This is on the Red Gnus todo list. Or rather, the mail backends will > fudge a missing From: header from the "From " separator. This isn't a good idea, as you're effectively setting the reply address for the message to the envelope sender--and that's only allowed for bounces, I think (or it might not be, I don't have the time to dig into 821/822 to check this :). In fact, I'm pretty certain that you're not supposed to reply to the conents of Sender:, and that's a 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO For systems which automatically generate address lists for replies to messages, the following recommendations are made: 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. o The "Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used automatically, in a recipient's reply message. o If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. Kai's original idea is better as it only effects what gets displayed in the summary, no (illegal in this instance?) munging of headers. -Sudish ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-03 22:58 ` Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-06 8:44 ` Kai Grossjohann 1996-05-06 11:12 ` Per Persson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Kai Grossjohann @ 1996-05-06 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, ding >>>>> Kai Grossjohann <grossjoh@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> >>>>> writes: Kai> WIBNI Gnus were to use the information from X-From-Line in lieu of the Kai> missing `From ' line? >>>>> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes: Lars> This is on the Red Gnus todo list. Or rather, the mail backends will Lars> fudge a missing From: header from the "From " separator. >>>>> On 03 May 1996 18:58:25 -0400, "Sudish Joseph" >>>>> <sudish@VNET.IBM.COM> said: Sudish> This isn't a good idea, as you're effectively setting the Sudish> reply address for the message to the envelope sender--and Sudish> that's only allowed for bounces, I think [...] I'm talking about the cases where you have neither of `From:', `Sender:' and `Reply-To:', you only have the `From ' line to go on. Then surely using the address given in the `From ' line can't be worse than using `' (the empty string) as reply address? kai -- Gleep! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 8:44 ` Kai Grossjohann @ 1996-05-06 11:12 ` Per Persson 1996-05-06 12:00 ` Per Abrahamsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Persson @ 1996-05-06 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Sudish Joseph, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, ding Kai Grossjohann <grossjoh@charly.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> writes: I'm talking about the cases where you have neither of `From:', `Sender:' and `Reply-To:', you only have the `From ' line to go on. Then surely using the address given in the `From ' line can't be worse than using `' (the empty string) as reply address? On mailinglists, the "From " line is mostly a pointer to the owner of the mailinglist. I don't think that this persons wants to recieve mails because something is broken on the actual senders side. I know I wouldn't, I know I would hate it, I know I would track down the dimwit who coded the feature and force him to learn texinfo. -- Bahnhof; http://www.bahnhof.se/ <pp@bahnhof.se> | a difference of (work) phone(voice/fax): +46 18 100899/103737 | opinion is possible PFAWWW; http://pfawww.pp.se/pp/ <pp@pfawww.pp.se> | ^. .^ anum meum (!work) phone(voice) : +46 18 247473 | ( @ ) aperies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 11:12 ` Per Persson @ 1996-05-06 12:00 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 12:12 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 15:59 ` Per Persson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "PP" == Per Persson <pp@pfawww.pp.se> writes: PP> On mailinglists, the "From " line is mostly a pointer to the owner of PP> the mailinglist. I don't think that this persons wants to recieve PP> mails because something is broken on the actual senders side. If the mailing list sends out mail without `From: ' lines, he deserves to get a direct feed of `talk.bizarre' forwarded to his personal mail account. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 12:00 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 12:12 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 15:59 ` Per Persson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw) I just tried to a message without a From: header by talking to sendmail directly. Sendmail automatically created a From: header, using the envelope sender. Here is some extracts from the test (indentation added by me): kleene% telnet smtp smtp mail from: amanda 250 amanda... Sender ok rcpt to: abraham 250 abraham... Recipient ok help data data 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself test . 250 NAA26313 Message accepted for delivery quit kleene% cat /var/spool/mail/abraham From amanda Mon May 6 13:58:56 1996 Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 13:57:50 +0200 From: amanda Message-Id: <199605061157.NAA26313@elc1.dina.kvl.dk> Apparently-To: abraham test kleene% ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 12:00 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 12:12 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 15:59 ` Per Persson 1996-05-06 16:01 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 16:42 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Persson @ 1996-05-06 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes: If the mailing list sends out mail without `From: ' lines, he deserves to get a direct feed of `talk.bizarre' forwarded to his personal mail account. It's not up to the mailinglist to add a "From: " header. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 15:59 ` Per Persson @ 1996-05-06 16:01 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 17:30 ` Per Persson 1996-05-06 16:42 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "PP" == Per Persson <pp@pfawww.pp.se> writes: PP> It's not up to the mailinglist to add a "From: " header. I think the mailing list should reject such submissions, but I suspect most mailing lists will add a `From: ' header based on the envelope if you actually try. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 16:01 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 17:30 ` Per Persson 1996-05-06 17:45 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 17:46 ` Stainless Steel Rat 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Persson @ 1996-05-06 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes: >>>>> "PP" == Per Persson <pp@pfawww.pp.se> writes: PP> It's not up to the mailinglist to add a "From: " header. I think the mailing list should reject such submissions, but I suspect most mailing lists will add a `From: ' header based on the envelope if you actually try. These are the relevant headers from your mail; >From ding-request@ifi.uio.no Mon May 6 19:13:59 1996 Sender: abraham@dina.kvl.dk From: Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> 1) the list adds an appropriate "From " header. 2) your MUA or your MTA adds a "Sender: " header, in perfect conditions this should be done by the MTA. 3) your MUA adds a "From: " header--if missing, the MTA might do it. An MUA should use option three first, then option two if three is missing which is shouldn't be. An MUA should NOT use the "From " header, just as it shouldn't use the "Return-Path: " header. The "From " header isn't added by the MUA or the MTA, it's actually added my the MDA. This isn't really relevant to this mailinglist, it should be fought over on comp.mail.headers. IMHO, GNUS should NOT use a header which is likly to return something you don't want to use, at least not without querying the user first. -- Bahnhof; http://www.bahnhof.se/ <pp@bahnhof.se> | a difference of (work) phone(voice/fax): +46 18 100899/103737 | opinion is possible PFAWWW; http://pfawww.pp.se/pp/ <pp@pfawww.pp.se> | ^. .^ anum meum (!work) phone(voice) : +46 18 247473 | ( @ ) aperies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 17:30 ` Per Persson @ 1996-05-06 17:45 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 20:12 ` Per Persson 1996-05-06 17:46 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "PP" == Per Persson <pp@pfawww.pp.se> writes: PP> From ding-request@ifi.uio.no Mon May 6 19:13:59 1996 PP> Sender: abraham@dina.kvl.dk PP> From: Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> Since it has a From: header, the example is irrelevant. Nobody is proposing that Gnus use `From' instead of `From:'. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 17:45 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 20:12 ` Per Persson 1996-05-07 5:38 ` Per Abrahamsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Persson @ 1996-05-06 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes: Since it has a From: header, the example is irrelevant. Nobody is proposing that Gnus use `From' instead of `From:'. You didn't read the rest of my mail, did you? /pp. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 20:12 ` Per Persson @ 1996-05-07 5:38 ` Per Abrahamsen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-07 5:38 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "PP" == Per Persson <pp@pfawww.pp.se> writes: PP> You didn't read the rest of my mail, did you? Yes I did. The MTA will add a From: if there isn't one, using the envelope sender if necessary. This is true for mailing lists too. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 17:30 ` Per Persson 1996-05-06 17:45 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 17:46 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 1996-05-06 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "PP" == Per Persson <pp@pfawww.pp.se> writes: PP> 1) the list adds an appropriate "From " header. 'From<space>' is actually generated by the delivery agent on "your" (the recipient's) mail server when the mail is delivered into the system mailbox. Not all mail systems use the Unix mail delimiters; PMDF uses a string of four ^A characters to begin and end every message, thus no 'From<space>' is necessary (and is often not generated). PP> 2) your MUA or your MTA adds a "Sender: " header, in perfect PP> conditions this should be done by the MTA. MTAs are technically the only entities that are supposed to add 'Sender:'; this is what the -s switch to sendmail is for, for instance. MUAs should not generate 'Sender:' fields, and they should ignore this header in messages received. PP> 3) your MUA adds a "From: " header--if missing, the MTA might do it. The MTA *must* do it if the MUA does not. It is required that the MTA do it if the MUA has not provided a 'From:' header. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMY465p6VRH7BJMxHAQHkMAP/XmuThI1d0x6qkbkQ8DVSEsdEidNic6hy ecOUgoO+dIp890pb0jUN94jpwXuDWBFW0l7ABFKz1Ca9aWIT45VS/anG0bwPXkeE 7T2shy18s4ct13hS8m43p0oIagxnlw5GcSThJlFeGNtvtVIOllm0JWiiF4UyAhVT dJJeYq2kvAo= =pv1s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Rat <ratinox@ccs.neu.edu> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ of skin. http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 15:59 ` Per Persson 1996-05-06 16:01 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 16:42 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 1996-05-06 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "PP" == Per Persson <pp@pfawww.pp.se> writes: PP> It's not up to the mailinglist to add a "From: " header. Correct; it is up to the MTA that initially handles each message to ensure that a valid From: header is generated if one does not already exist (cf, RFC822). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMY4r356VRH7BJMxHAQHMBAQArElgLx/VTplNsM6Fc+DYU+wAzRrsVwWL b6Xq+x6FpWci2BVa58qV7f1KHKBe01e5IUxugNUOpm/ju8QPU+I5/BU9OBVvZ/AQ hN0oE4M+Z6zNjxob4Hu5JVqGS4opFvbrIFw2fPMf9aK4sa9dk8p9m2nxRLD3Kqv2 4lwoV1atDmg= =oqmY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Rat <ratinox@ccs.neu.edu> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ returned to its special container and http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ kept under refrigeration. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-03 18:31 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 1996-05-03 22:58 ` Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-03 23:11 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-04 0:39 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-04 1:37 ` Per Abrahamsen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-03 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding [ Argh, I thought the Supercite keymap was hanging off C-c C-s, with unfortunate results. Hmm, SC's keymap isn't to be found, a side effect of the change of hook names in message.el? ] Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes: > Kai Grossjohann <grossjoh@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> writes: > > WIBNI Gnus were to use the information from X-From-Line in lieu of the > > missing `From ' line? > > This is on the Red Gnus todo list. Or rather, the mail backends will > fudge a missing From: header from the "From " separator. I wrote: mishap> This isn't a good idea, as you're effectively setting the reply mishap> address for the message to the envelope sender--and that's only mishap> allowed for bounces, I think (or it might not be, I don't have the mishap> time to dig into 821/822 to check this (*). In fact, I'm pretty mishap> certain that you're not supposed to reply to the conents of Sender:, mishap> and that's a Anyways, the above paragraph was going to be changed to end on the lines of: "you're not supposed to reply to the contents of Sender, and Sender's a whole lot better for this purpose than the envelope recipient (as mailing list expanders are required to rewrite env. rec.); so I'd assume that replying _manually_ to env. recip. is strictly taboo." Here's 822 on replying to Sender. 822> 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO 822> 822> For systems which automatically generate address lists for 822> replies to messages, the following recommendations are made: 822> 822> o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of 822> any problems in transport or delivery of the original 822> messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the 822> "From" field mailbox should be used. 822> 822> o The "Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used 822> automatically, in a recipient's reply message. Kai's original idea is better as it only effects what gets displayed in the summary, no (illegal in this instance?) munging of headers. Basically, this kind of thing gives me the shivers, since it could well backfire in the manner that Pine's use of Newsgroup has. No, I haven't thought it through, but it still gives me the creeps. :-) -Sudish " (*) And I should have stuck to that, instead of losing more time now, greeping 822 and then rewriting this :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-03 23:11 ` Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-04 0:39 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-04 1:37 ` Per Abrahamsen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-04 0:39 UTC (permalink / raw) I gibbered: > Anyways, the above paragraph was going to be changed to end on the > lines of: "you're not supposed to reply to the contents of Sender, > and Sender's a whole lot better for this purpose than the envelope > recipient (as mailing list expanders are required to rewrite > env. rec.); so I'd assume that replying _manually_ to env. recip. is > strictly taboo." Um, I meant envelope sender wherever I said envelope recipient, of course. Also, I think I'd prefer having a blank display to even Kai's suggestion of using env. sender--IBM's vnet mail gateway rewrites it to a source-routed form (advertising itself, of course) that is so ugly to look at that a blank would be far better. :-) -Sudish ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-03 23:11 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-04 0:39 ` Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-04 1:37 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-05 0:10 ` Sudish Joseph 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-04 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw) RFC 822 is irrelevant since a message without a "From: " is not an RFC 822 message in the first place. >>>>> "RFC822" == Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages wrote: RFC822> A.3. COMPLETE HEADERS RFC822> A.3.1. Minimum required RFC822> Date: 26 Aug 76 1429 EDT Date: 26 Aug 76 1429 EDT RFC822> From: Jones@Registry.Org or From: Jones@Registry.Org RFC822> Bcc: To: Smith@Registry.Org The question is how to transform a piece of random junk in unix mbox format into something resembling an RFC 822 message. Using the information in the `From ' message separator to generate a missing `From:' and `Date:' header has worked fine for me when converting old mbox.out files, and works fine for VM and many other mail agents. And the right term is `message separator', the `From ' lines in an mbox.out has nothing to do with sendmail envelope addresses. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-04 1:37 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-05 0:10 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-05 7:59 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-05 12:33 ` Per Abrahamsen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-05 0:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes: > RFC 822 is irrelevant since a message without a "From: " is not an RFC > 822 message in the first place. Hardly. Not when your goal is to generate an 822 format message. The issue isn't what format the original crud is in, the issue is what format it will be transformed into. > The question is how to transform a piece of random junk in unix mbox > format into something resembling an RFC 822 message. Using the Just like it's Pine's intent to transform a random piece of junk into a format that's suitable for following up to as a USENET message. We all know how that went, never mind that Pine's usage of Newsgroup makes more sense in theory. > information in the `From ' message separator to generate a missing > `From:' and `Date:' header has worked fine for me when converting old > mbox.out files, and works fine for VM and many other mail agents. Hitting "r" on such a message is going to cause problems for anything other than personal mail (yes, that's 822 behaviour, but then your stated goal is to transform to 822 format). I have yet to see an MDA-generated UNIX From_ line contain anything other than the envelope sender (+ctime date), I'd be grateful if you showed me such an example. To put it simply: Anything that can be achieved by munging together a From: header by inspecting From_ can be done by inspecting From_ whenever you do not see a From:. If that doesn't please you, put the information in an X-Bogosity: header. Don't mess up a message that might later be processed by an agent other than GNUS. -Sudish ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-05 0:10 ` Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-05 7:59 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 14:53 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-05 12:33 ` Per Abrahamsen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-05 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "SJ" == Sudish Joseph <sudish@VNET.IBM.COM> writes: SJ> Just like it's Pine's intent to transform a random piece of junk into SJ> a format that's suitable for following up to as a USENET message. We SJ> all know how that went, never mind that Pine's usage of Newsgroup SJ> makes more sense in theory. Pine wasn't dealing with random junk and it wasn't doing any transformations, and it went against an established tradition for how to use a particular header. None of these are relevant for the issue at hand, quite the contrary Gnus would be following an established tradition, which mailers like VM has shown works well in practice. It seems to me that converting the 'From ' line in the absence of a `From:' header will be the right thing in all real examples, and no worse than not converting it in hypothetical examples. SJ> To put it simply: SJ> Anything that can be achieved by munging together a From: header by SJ> inspecting From_ can be done by inspecting From_ whenever you do not SJ> see a From:. If that doesn't please you, put the information in an SJ> X-Bogosity: header. Don't mess up a message that might later be SJ> processed by an agent other than GNUS. The `From ' line is an artifact of the mbox format, so leaving it alone is not an option with other backends. Converting is to an `X-' header will break if the message is later read by another mail agent (like VM), who will then not be able to access the information. The only way to preserve the information is to convert the broken message into standard (RFC 822) format. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-05 7:59 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 14:53 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-06 15:18 ` Per Abrahamsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-06 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes: > It seems to me that converting the 'From ' line in the absence of a > `From:' header will be the right thing in all real examples, and no Here's a real example: *Every* message I receive from the internet has envelope sender set to a fixed address of this form: <@smtp.relay,relay.id@vm.node.that.doesn't.speak.tcp.ip> (also a nice real world example of a valid use of source routes) > worse than not converting it in hypothetical examples. Not necessarily. Using the envelope sender makes sense for local mail and mail sent to directly connected hosts. True, this accounts for the vast majority of mail messages (and ~ 10% of my mail). Then again, the percentages of messages w/o From: lines is vanishingly small. I'd prefer that GNUS did not tear, damage or spindle the headers (other than X-blah) of any message I receive. I'll detect the lack of a From: line when I try to reply to any such errant message, and I'll be able to make a far better estimate of the actual return address than GNUS. Unless, of course, someone wants to write that cool routine to parse Received: headers to see where the mail originated, and then figure out how to reply to it. This is far more likely to be correct than using envelope sender. > The `From ' line is an artifact of the mbox format, so leaving it > alone is not an option with other backends. Converting is to an `X-' > header will break if the message is later read by another mail agent > (like VM), who will then not be able to access the information. The > only way to preserve the information is to convert the broken message > into standard (RFC 822) format. GNUS current X-From-Line preserves that information. Putting it in From: destroys information (namely, the far more important information that the original message did not have a From: line). I do not want to reply to From_ blindly. I'd prefer that my MUA choked and died on such messages. Oh, yes. Please note that replies send to envelope sender can disappear w/o any fuss. You won't even have the benefit of a bounce to know that you must resend. At least make this an option that defaults to nil. -Sudish ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 14:53 ` Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-06 15:18 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 17:33 ` Sudish Joseph 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "SJ" == Sudish Joseph <sudish@VNET.IBM.COM> writes: SJ> Here's a real example: *Every* message I receive from the internet has SJ> envelope sender set to a fixed address of this form: SJ> <@smtp.relay,relay.id@vm.node.that.doesn't.speak.tcp.ip> SJ> (also a nice real world example of a valid use of source routes) How does it From: header looks? If it looks right, the example is irrelevant. SJ> I'll detect the SJ> lack of a From: line when I try to reply to any such errant message, Have you ever received such a message? I have been unable to generate one with sendmail or /bin/mail here. As I noted in another message, sendmail insist on putting the envelope address in the From: line if there isn't one in the first place. SJ> At least make this an option that defaults to nil. Why should the default be something that is wrong in all examples you and me can think of? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 15:18 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 17:33 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-06 17:53 ` Per Abrahamsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-06 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes: > How does it From: header looks? > > If it looks right, the example is irrelevant. The example simply points out that your notion of "real world" is incorrect. > SJ> I'll detect the > SJ> lack of a From: line when I try to reply to any such errant message, > > Have you ever received such a message? I have been unable to generate > one with sendmail or /bin/mail here. As I noted in another message, > sendmail insist on putting the envelope address in the From: line if > there isn't one in the first place. Precisely why I would prefer to have that one glaring exception be handled manually, instead of having GNUS decide for me. > SJ> At least make this an option that defaults to nil. > > Why should the default be something that is wrong in all examples you > and me can think of? Uh, why is it "wrong"? Would you rather that the default was to set up a situation where a user can reply to a mail only to have it be delivered to some auto-scanner that sinks it unread? We agree that the lack of "From:" is an extremely rare incident. Then why do you wish that the user forgo the pleasure of handling this once-in-a-lifetime incident herself? Besides, like you've shown by your sendmail example, the message would have to arrive by a really weird route to not have a From: line in the first place. Given this, the envelope sender information is unlikely to be pointing to the originating host; definitely not an address that should be auto-selected for replies. -Sudish ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-06 17:33 ` Sudish Joseph @ 1996-05-06 17:53 ` Per Abrahamsen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-06 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "SJ" == Sudish Joseph <sudish@VNET.IBM.COM> writes: SJ> The example simply points out that your notion of "real world" is SJ> incorrect. No, your example support what I have said. External mail has a `From:' header. SJ> Precisely why I would prefer to have that one glaring exception be SJ> handled manually, instead of having GNUS decide for me. It is *not* a glaring exception! Messages in mbox format without From: lines are quite common. They are just not created by mail delivery agents, but other programs such as mail and news readers using `FCC: '. My point has has been that incoming, external mail without `From: ' is rare, and that we should set the default for the common case, namely `From:' less messages generated by other programs or perhaps local mailers. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail without `From:' lines 1996-05-05 0:10 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-05 7:59 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-05 12:33 ` Per Abrahamsen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 1996-05-05 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "SJ" == Sudish Joseph <sudish@VNET.IBM.COM> writes: SJ> I have yet to see an MDA-generated UNIX From_ line contain anything SJ> other than the envelope sender (+ctime date), I'd be grateful if you SJ> showed me such an example. Using /bin/mail in research unix to send mail to a local user will result in a mail with no From: line. The intention is that one should use the `From ' line for replies. The system administrator at research.att.com insists that this is the correct behaviour, and that everyone else are wrong. They were first. However, I'm more concerned about files create with `FCC:' by mail agents, that's the only source for `From:' less mail I know of outside AT&T. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1996-05-07 5:38 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1996-05-03 11:45 Mail without `From:' lines Kai Grossjohann 1996-05-03 18:31 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 1996-05-03 22:58 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-06 8:44 ` Kai Grossjohann 1996-05-06 11:12 ` Per Persson 1996-05-06 12:00 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 12:12 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 15:59 ` Per Persson 1996-05-06 16:01 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 17:30 ` Per Persson 1996-05-06 17:45 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 20:12 ` Per Persson 1996-05-07 5:38 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 17:46 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1996-05-06 16:42 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1996-05-03 23:11 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-04 0:39 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-04 1:37 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-05 0:10 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-05 7:59 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 14:53 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-06 15:18 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-06 17:33 ` Sudish Joseph 1996-05-06 17:53 ` Per Abrahamsen 1996-05-05 12:33 ` Per Abrahamsen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).