From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36485 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sender header? Date: 27 May 2001 19:20:59 -0400 Message-ID: References: <01May23.141128edt.115245@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.115917edt.115250@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.143521edt.115214@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.153439edt.115213@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.163305edt.115259@gateway.intersys.com> <01May25.161238edt.115273@gateway.intersys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035172061 8841 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:47:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:47:41 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 20543 invoked by alias); 27 May 2001 23:21:00 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 20535 invoked from network); 27 May 2001 23:21:00 -0000 Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (261@129.22.96.25) by gnus.org with SMTP; 27 May 2001 23:21:00 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 31177 invoked by uid 500); 27 May 2001 23:21:21 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: "\(ding\)" In-Reply-To: (Stainless Steel Rat's message of "27 May 2001 19:02:28 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 40 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36485 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36485 Stainless Steel Rat writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Sun, 27 May 2001 >| It may. Or it may not, depending on what the admin wants. Nothing is >| necessarily broken with a server that accepts mail addressed to >| foo.com but rejects mail addressed to bar.foo.com. > > Then foo.com's mail gateway should masqerade mail headers so that nobody > outside ever sees bar.foo.com. Or the internal clients could be configured to use addresses that work from the outside. You may have a preference for one strategy, but that doesn't mean the other doesn't work, or is prohibited by any RFC. >| But you would require Gnus to use the hostname where the message >| originated, right? You've said this is a consequence of *some* >| requirement of 2822; show it to us. > > If Gnus is generating headers automatically, then yes, that is what it > should use. Are you still claiming that an RFC requires this? If so, which and where? If not, tell us exactly why user-mail-address is worse. It isn't for informative value for humans tracking down problems, because Received still carries all the information you need. >| Wrong. You're trying to apply too much intelligence - the "address" >| is just that; you don't have to figure out what they really meant (in >| this case). E.g., "prj@[129.22.4.2]". Anyway, this is just one >| possible form of address; requirements on one form don't necessarily >| apply to other forms of addresses. > > Now you are deliberately being a pain in the ass. No, everything in that paragraph is true. Try sending some test messages addressed to [domain.com] and to [1.2.3.4]; see which ones reach the SMTP server. (Which ones are accepted, once received, is another matter.) paul