From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/44916 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Who sets Sender:? Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:13:32 -0400 Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87bsbak1ws.fsf@nwalsh.com> <87d6vqtqnv.fsf@squeaker.lickey.com> <02May21.105936edt.119176@gateway.intersystems.com> <02May21.122206edt.119093@gateway.intersystems.com> <02May21.142858edt.119269@gateway.intersystems.com> <02May21.154121edt.119281@gateway.intersystems.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1022012245 10214 127.0.0.1 (21 May 2002 20:17:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 20:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17AG4S-0002ed-00 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 22:17:25 +0200 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 17AG4A-0003Bu-00; Tue, 21 May 2002 15:17:06 -0500 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 21 May 2002 15:17:24 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA10952 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 15:14:09 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (qmail 3127 invoked by alias); 21 May 2002 20:12:13 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 3122 invoked from network); 21 May 2002 20:12:12 -0000 Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (qmailr@129.22.96.25) by gnus.org with SMTP; 21 May 2002 20:12:12 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 30262 invoked by uid 500); 21 May 2002 20:13:55 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <02May21.154121edt.119281@gateway.intersystems.com> (Stainless Steel Rat's message of "Tue, 21 May 2002 15:46:16 -0400") Mail-Copies-To: nobody Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 47 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:44916 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:44916 Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > It is presumed that the MUA will do so if the user does not, just as > the MUA fills in the From header as necessary. Is the MUA supposed to be able to determine when Sender is needed? > | > I choose to use a definition of "identity" that meets the criteria given by > | > both RFC 2822 and > > | Which criteria are those, specifically? > > That it identify the agent who hits the button that initiates the process > of connecting to the the MTA or news server and handing off the message, That criterion is satisfied equally well by either of our definitions. > and that an attempt has been made at getting the address correct if the > user has not done so himself. I can't find that criterion in RFC 2822. Can you point it out? Even assuming this criterion, the MUA is extremely limited in its ability to construct a correct address. user@hostname is often not a working address - I'd say it's wrong more often than right. It seems to me that even for an MUA that wants to satisfy your position, it cannot do any better, on average, than leaving From and Sender entirely to the user. > Where you see a small problem, I see a symptom of a greater problem, > one that affects all users on a network. Your solution is to > configure the client. That's the only way I have to fix my instance of the problem. I would like to see MUAs changed to never add Sender automatically, but that's outside my scope. > My solution is to configure the network and mail gateway to function > correctly for everyone who uses them. Yes, but you also (seem to) take the extra step of claiming that RFC 2822 demands this of you. I'm not saying that you shouldn't configure your network that way, or that RFC 2822 claims that you shouldn't. I'm saying that RFC 2822 *doesn't* say that you *should*; it is silent on this issue. paul