* Sender header? @ 2001-05-23 16:27 Kai Großjohann 2001-05-23 16:34 ` Paul Jarc ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-23 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw) What does Gnus use these days to find out if a Sender header should be added? Proposal: by default, don't add a Sender header if the message does not contain a From header. Don't add a Sender header if the message contains a From header which is equal to the value computed automatically (for folks with message-generate-headers-first set to t). Only add a Sender header if the From header is different from the normal value. What do you think? kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-23 16:27 Sender header? Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-23 16:34 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 13:17 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-23 18:14 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 1:45 ` Karl Kleinpaste 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-23 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > Only add a Sender header if the From header is different from the > normal value. Are you talking about mail or news? Sender means something different for each. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-23 16:34 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 13:17 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw) On 23 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote: > Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: >> Only add a Sender header if the From header is different from the >> normal value. > > Are you talking about mail or news? Sender means something > different for each. I guess I'm primarily talking about mail. But just now I looked at RFC 1036, and the example given there does not match what Gnus is doing. Gnus generates a Sender header as user@host.domain.com, but look at the example given there: From: smith@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John Smith) Sender: jones@cca.COM (Sarah Jones) Surely, `cca.com' is not the host name of the machine? Surely the host name would be something like `foo.cca.com'? But I'm not sure what son of RFC 1036 and grandson of RFC 1036 say about this. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-23 16:27 Sender header? Kai Großjohann 2001-05-23 16:34 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-23 18:14 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 13:11 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 1:45 ` Karl Kleinpaste 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-23 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Wed, 23 May 2001 | Proposal: by default, don't add a Sender header if the message does | not contain a From header. This case is fundamentally flawed. There are times when a Sender header MUST be generated by the MUA before the message is handed to the MTA. This cannot be done correctly unless a From header exists. Or do you mean that Gnus should automatically generate a From header at the time of sumission instead of generating a Sender header? I think this is dangerous because if Gnus already generates bad Sender headers, it is going to generate equivalently bad From headers. | Don't add a Sender header if the message contains a From header which is | equal to the value computed automatically (for folks with | message-generate-headers-first set to t). Correct. RFC 2822 qualifies this as a "SHOULD NOT" case. It is allowed but discouraged to have duplicate From and Sender field mailboxes. Note that Sender MUST be a single mailbox whereas From may be many. | Only add a Sender header if the From header is different from the normal | value. This is what Gnus does now, yes? -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-23 18:14 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 13:11 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-24 15:59 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 20:18 ` Christoph Conrad 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On Wed, 23 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Wed, 23 May > 2001 > | Proposal: by default, don't add a Sender header if the message does > | not contain a From header. > > This case is fundamentally flawed. There are times when a Sender > header MUST be generated by the MUA before the message is handed to > the MTA. This cannot be done correctly unless a From header exists. > > Or do you mean that Gnus should automatically generate a From header > at the time of sumission instead of generating a Sender header? I > think this is dangerous because if Gnus already generates bad Sender > headers, it is going to generate equivalently bad From headers. By default, Gnus creates a From header for all outgoing messages. This is because From is mentioned in message-required-mail-headers and message-required-news-headers. > | Don't add a Sender header if the message contains a From header > | which is equal to the value computed automatically (for folks with > | message-generate-headers-first set to t). > > Correct. RFC 2822 qualifies this as a "SHOULD NOT" case. It is > allowed but discouraged to have duplicate From and Sender field > mailboxes. Note that Sender MUST be a single mailbox whereas From > may be many. > > | Only add a Sender header if the From header is different from the > | normal value. > > This is what Gnus does now, yes? No. As you can see in this message, Gnus automatically adds a Sender header. I have changed the variable user-mail-address. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 13:11 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 15:59 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 16:31 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-24 20:18 ` Christoph Conrad 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May 2001 | By default, Gnus creates a From header for all outgoing messages. | This is because From is mentioned in message-required-mail-headers and | message-required-news-headers. And nobody complains about From being wrong. Therefore it is safe to assume that in cases where a correct From field is (or would be) generated, a correct Sender field would also be generated when the From field is not canonical for the sending host. | > | Only add a Sender header if the From header is different from the | > | normal value. | > This is what Gnus does now, yes? | No. As you can see in this message, Gnus automatically adds a Sender | header. I have changed the variable user-mail-address. Then what I said is correct, and what Gnus does is also correct as far as RFC 2822 is concerned. I have several mailboxes: ratinox@rei.nerv.gweep.net, ratinox@newsguy.com, SamuraiRat@hotmail.com, ratinox@peorth.gweep.net, and others. They are all me, but that does not mean ratinox@newsguy.com == ratinox@peorth.gweep.net. They are different mailboxes. If I were to send a message from my local machine (peorth.gweep.net) and address it from my Hotmail address, the MUA is required to generate a Sender header with ratinox@peorth.gweep.net as its contents. You have done exactly the same thing. The fact that your mailboxes are within the same domain is irrelevant, and lucy should have an MX record that points it at the cs.uni-dortmund.de mail servers, which in fact it does, which makes Kai.Grossjohann@lucy.CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE a valid mailbox. Put susinctly, Gnus is doing exactly what it should, when it should, according to RFC 2822, and I do not understand why you want to break it :). -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 15:59 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 16:31 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-24 18:35 ` Stainless Steel Rat 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On Thu, 24 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May > 2001 > | By default, Gnus creates a From header for all outgoing messages. > | This is because From is mentioned in message-required-mail-headers and > | message-required-news-headers. > > And nobody complains about From being wrong. Therefore it is safe > to assume that in cases where a correct From field is (or would be) > generated, a correct Sender field would also be generated when the > From field is not canonical for the sending host. I dare say that people don't complain because people can frob their >From header via user-mail-address. They cannot, however, frob their Sender header via user-mail-address. Right now, if user-mail-address is set, Gnus behaves as follows: - If no From header is specified, generate one using user-mail-address. - Generate a Sender header using user-login-name, followed by "@", followed by system-name. - If the Sender header is redundant, delete it. I wish to change it as follows: - If no From header is specified, generate one using user-mail-address. - Generate a Sender header using user-mail-address. - If the Sender header is redundant, delete it. It seems that my suggestion is what you want, since you assume that the algorithms for generating From and Sender headers are the same. However, in the current Gnus they are not the same. I want to make them the same. > | > | Only add a Sender header if the From header is different from > | > | the normal value. > | > This is what Gnus does now, yes? > | No. As you can see in this message, Gnus automatically adds a > | Sender header. I have changed the variable user-mail-address. > > Then what I said is correct, and what Gnus does is also correct as > far as RFC 2822 is concerned. I don't know what does RFC 2822 say. I only know about RFC 822. The local RFC server doesn't seem to know about this RFC. Can you help out? > I have several mailboxes: ratinox@rei.nerv.gweep.net, > ratinox@newsguy.com, SamuraiRat@hotmail.com, > ratinox@peorth.gweep.net, and others. They are all me, but that > does not mean ratinox@newsguy.com == ratinox@peorth.gweep.net. They > are different mailboxes. If I were to send a message from my local > machine (peorth.gweep.net) and address it from my Hotmail address, > the MUA is required to generate a Sender header with > ratinox@peorth.gweep.net as its contents. I'm with you so far. I presume that you have set user-mail-address to "ratinox@peorth.gweep.net". Then my proposal does what you want. > You have done exactly the same thing. The fact that your mailboxes > are within the same domain is irrelevant, and lucy should have an MX > record that points it at the cs.uni-dortmund.de mail servers, which > in fact it does, which makes Kai.Grossjohann@lucy.CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE > a valid mailbox. I am lucky that user-login-name at system-name is a valid mail address and that mail sent there reaches me. However, not everybody might be as lucky. As I see it, Gnus has no way of automatically finding out what is the email address of the user running Emacs. Therefore, it should be possible to tell Gnus. But just this is not possible. > Put susinctly, Gnus is doing exactly what it should, when it should, > according to RFC 2822, and I do not understand why you want to break > it :). I do not understand why you think I'm breaking anything. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 16:31 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 18:35 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 19:00 ` Paul Jarc ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Before this gets too long, here is a hint: system-name. Think about it for a moment. * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May 2001 | I dare say that people don't complain because people can frob their | From header via user-mail-address. They cannot, however, frob their | Sender header via user-mail-address. And they should not. Frobbing it directly would be a violation of the requirements of RFCs 2822 and 1034. [...] | - Generate a Sender header using user-login-name, followed by "@", | followed by system-name. Which is as canonical as a program can get. Sender is supposed to be canonical. By "canonical" I mean "an attempt has been made to ensure that the mailbox is valid". For a correctly configured system, and that includes the mail hubs and what-not, not just the local machine, `login at FQDN' is canonical. I apparantly misunderstood something, because using user-mail-address for generating Sender would break that. Therefore it should not be done. [...] | I don't know what does RFC 2822 say. I only know about RFC 822. The | local RFC server doesn't seem to know about this RFC. Can you help | out? RFCs 2821 and 2822 obsoleted RFCs 821 and 822 about a month ago. They clarify a lot of things, not the least of which is Sender, both by standard and defacto use. [...] | I'm with you so far. I presume that you have set user-mail-address to | "ratinox@peorth.gweep.net". Then my proposal does what you want. No, I don't. I have my system configured correctly. It knows itself as peorth.gweep.net, so Emacs knows it as peorth.gweep.net, so Gnus knows it as peorth.gweep.net, and nothing needs to be kludged. You seem to believe that because only one person is involved in originating a message and submitting it that the one person has only one identity. This is not true. If I were to send a message from rei.nerv.gweep.net (one of peorth's MX hosts), I am still ratinox@peorth, but I am also ratinox@rei.nerv. As the originator of a message I am ratinox@peorth and I put that in the From header -- how I accomplish that is not relevant. As the sender I am ratinox@rei.nerv, and that goes in the Sender header. It is up to rei's admins to ensure that ratinox@rei.nerv is deliverable. And everything Just Works, no fuss, no muss. Handling mail incorrectly seems easy, until you discover that everything is an exception. Doing it right is hard to set up, but there are few special cases and everything else Just Works. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 18:35 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 19:00 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 19:34 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 22:40 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-24 22:49 ` Kai Großjohann 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > You seem to believe that because only one person is involved in originating > a message and submitting it that the one person has only one identity. > This is not true. A person may have multiple mailboxes, but where does RFC 2822 say that a mailbox is an identity? The RFC doesn't seem to be aware of the multiple-mailbox case, though. 3.6.2: # The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox of the agent responsible # for the actual transmission of the message. Note "the mailbox", not "a mailbox". :( Also, I see no indication here that Sender should be tied to the system where the message originated. All the examples of uses of Sender involve one person sending a message on behalf of someone else; none of them involve one person sending their own message with a From field that doesn't indicate the system they're sending from. An "agent" is apparently a person, and your mail address on one system still identifies you even when you're sending mail from another. By your interpretation, the RFC is requiring that every machine that sends mail must be usable in a recipient address - i.e., the MX (or A) for that name must be configured to accept mail addressed to that individual host. (Otherwise, user-login-name@system-name wouldn't be a mailbox of the originator of the message.) Do you think the authors really intended to require this? paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 19:00 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 19:34 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 19:52 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 20:30 ` Graham Murray 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw) * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 | A person may have multiple mailboxes, but where does RFC 2822 say that | a mailbox is an identity? A mailbox is a mailbox. A mailbox can be considered to identify its owner. That is mine. [...] | By your interpretation, the RFC is requiring that every machine that | sends mail must be usable in a recipient address - i.e., the MX (or A) | for that name must be configured to accept mail addressed to that | individual host. (Otherwise, user-login-name@system-name wouldn't be | a mailbox of the originator of the message.) Do you think the authors | really intended to require this? Yes, that is exactly what I think. A records are required for all machines on the Internet that have anything to do with mail, and MX records should exist for all such hosts. Proper mail handling depends on that being the case. If your host has neither A nor MX records then it is not configured correctly. Trying to make Gnus work around that does not fix the problem. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 19:34 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 19:52 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 20:32 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 20:30 ` Graham Murray 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| By your interpretation, the RFC is requiring that every machine that >| sends mail must be usable in a recipient address - i.e., the MX (or A) >| for that name must be configured to accept mail addressed to that >| individual host. (Otherwise, user-login-name@system-name wouldn't be >| a mailbox of the originator of the message.) Do you think the authors >| really intended to require this? > > Yes, that is exactly what I think. A records are required for all machines > on the Internet that have anything to do with mail, and MX records should > exist for all such hosts. But your interpretation requires more than that. It's not enough just to give random-sending-host.domain.com an MX record pointing to mail.domain.com - mail.domain.com must also accept mail explicitly addressed to random-sending-host.domain.com, even if it would otherwise only accept mail addressed to domain.com itself, because you would put random-sending-host.domain.com in Sender, and Sender must be a mailbox of the person who sends the message. Where does 2822 say that Sender must identify the host used to send the mail? > Proper mail handling depends on that being the case. What breaks when Sender does not identify the host the mail was sent from? > If your host has neither A nor MX records then it is not configured > correctly. Right, but the A and MX records aren't the problem. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 19:52 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 20:32 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 20:48 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 22:53 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw) * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 | But your interpretation requires more than that. It's not enough just | to give random-sending-host.domain.com an MX record pointing to | mail.domain.com - mail.domain.com must also accept mail explicitly | addressed to random-sending-host.domain.com, even if it would | otherwise only accept mail addressed to domain.com itself, because you | would put random-sending-host.domain.com in Sender, and Sender must be | a mailbox of the person who sends the message. Yes, it should. In fact, it must. That is the nature of DNS. | Where does 2822 say that Sender must identify the host used to send | the mail? The canonical mailbox is required by RFC 2822. login @ FQDN is the most canonical name for any given user. | > Proper mail handling depends on that being the case. | What breaks when Sender does not identify the host the mail was sent | from? The correct question is, what breaks the Sender field does not canonically identify the sender? The answer is, if the Sender field does not contain the canonical mailbox of the sender and there is a problem, perhaps with that machine, I may be unable to contact the sender. You see, Sender is for human consumption only. It exists at least partially so that humans, like me, can track down problems at their source. If the Sender field does not include the FQDN of the sending host it makes finding and solving problems that much more difficult. | > If your host has neither A nor MX records then it is not configured | > correctly. | Right, but the A and MX records aren't the problem. Correct, they are the solution. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 20:32 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 20:48 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 21:20 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 22:53 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| But your interpretation requires more than that. It's not enough just >| to give random-sending-host.domain.com an MX record pointing to >| mail.domain.com - mail.domain.com must also accept mail explicitly >| addressed to random-sending-host.domain.com, even if it would >| otherwise only accept mail addressed to domain.com itself, because you >| would put random-sending-host.domain.com in Sender, and Sender must be >| a mailbox of the person who sends the message. > > Yes, it should. In fact, it must. That is the nature of DNS. It is not the nature of DNS (or anything else) that the mail exchanger for domain.com must also accept mail for any other domain, such as random-sending-host.domain.com. >| Where does 2822 say that Sender must identify the host used to send >| the mail? > > The canonical mailbox is required by RFC 2822. I didn't ask you to restate the requirement. I asked where it was. RFC 2822 does not use the word "canonical" in connection with Sender. I haven't been able to find the requirement. > login @ FQDN is the most canonical name for any given user. It isn't a canonical address if it isn't an address at all. It also isn't known to be canonical at all - it's merely the only possible address that can be determined automatically. user-mail-address is extremely more likely to be the user's canonical address. A user's canonical address does not depend on what machine ey happens to be using at the moment. >| > Proper mail handling depends on that being the case. >| What breaks when Sender does not identify the host the mail was sent >| from? > > The correct question is, what breaks the Sender field does not canonically > identify the sender? No, it isn't. You're demanding that Sender identify not just the person who sent the message, but also the host it was sent from. So I ask, what will break if your additional requirement isn't met? > You see, Sender is for human consumption only. It exists at least > partially so that humans, like me, can track down problems at their > source. I can't find any support for that statement in RFC 2822. > If the Sender field does not include the FQDN of the sending host > it makes finding and solving problems that much more difficult. You still have Received fields. Sender is unreliable anyway, since it's under the control of a possible malicious person. >| Right, but the A and MX records aren't the problem. > > Correct, they are the solution. They are necessary, but not sufficient, to make your requirement work. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 20:48 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 21:20 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 21:31 ` Paul Jarc ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw) * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 | It is not the nature of DNS (or anything else) that the mail exchanger | for domain.com must also accept mail for any other domain, such as | random-sending-host.domain.com. Actually, it should. If it does not then steps should be taken to prevent "random-sending-host.domain.com" from sending mail or to masquerade it. | I didn't ask you to restate the requirement. I asked where it was. | RFC 2822 does not use the word "canonical" in connection with Sender. | I haven't been able to find the requirement. Sender is of type mailbox. It must be possible to deliver mail to an addr-spec for it to be a mailbox. Canonical means that at least some effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the thing; it does not need to be defined by RFC 2822 any more than the word "obsolete". | It isn't a canonical address if it isn't an address at all. But if login @ fqdn is not an address at all then something in the system is not configured correctly. [...] | No, it isn't. You're demanding that Sender identify not just the | person who sent the message, but also the host it was sent from. So I | ask, what will break if your additional requirement isn't met? And I answered. [...] | You still have Received fields. Sender is unreliable anyway, since | it's under the control of a possible malicious person. So is From, To, and just about everything else. Your point? | They are necessary, but not sufficient, to make your requirement | work. Actually, proper DNS records are all that is required to make it work. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 21:20 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 21:31 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 1:15 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 22:59 ` Kai Großjohann ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| It is not the nature of DNS (or anything else) that the mail exchanger >| for domain.com must also accept mail for any other domain, such as >| random-sending-host.domain.com. > > Actually, it should. If it does not then steps should be taken to prevent > "random-sending-host.domain.com" from sending mail or to masquerade it. So you say. I can't find any such statement in the RFCs. > Canonical means that at least some effort has been made to ensure > the accuracy of the thing; That's completely wrong. Go find a dictionary. >| It isn't a canonical address if it isn't an address at all. > > But if login @ fqdn is not an address at all then something in the system > is not configured correctly. I repeat, yet again: where is that requirement in the RFC? >| You still have Received fields. Sender is unreliable anyway, since >| it's under the control of a possible malicious person. > > So is From, To, and just about everything else. Your point? That those fields should not be used to track down problems, because you have something better: Received. > Actually, proper DNS records are all that is required to make it work. False. If domain.com's mail servers accept mail for domain.com but not for random-sending-host.domain.com, then Sender (as you would have it) would not be an actual mailbox, even with the DNS records in place. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 21:31 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 1:15 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 15:26 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 1:15 UTC (permalink / raw) * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 | False. If domain.com's mail servers accept mail for domain.com but | not for random-sending-host.domain.com, then Sender (as you would have | it) would not be an actual mailbox, even with the DNS records in | place. If domain.com's mail servers do not accept mail for the domain.com domain, they are so horribly misconfigured that anyone stuck with them should jump ship for AOL. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 1:15 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 15:26 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| False. If domain.com's mail servers accept mail for domain.com but >| not for random-sending-host.domain.com, then Sender (as you would have >| it) would not be an actual mailbox, even with the DNS records in >| place. > > If domain.com's mail servers do not accept mail for the domain.com domain, > they are so horribly misconfigured that anyone stuck with them should jump > ship for AOL. I agree. But that has nothing to do with what I said. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 21:20 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 21:31 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 22:59 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 1:23 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 23:18 ` Barry Fishman 2001-05-25 2:01 ` Bjørn Mork 3 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On Thu, 24 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > But if login @ fqdn is not an address at all then something in the > system is not configured correctly. Really? Why should a login have anything to do with a mail address? A login is only something you type at a login prompt. Maybe for security reasons you don't want to disclose login names to the outside world? I don't see any reason whatsoever for a login name to have something to do with a mail address. Why should a FQDN be (the after-@ part of) a mail address? Requiring for the host to be able to receive mail is akin to requiring every host on the Internet to provide a Web server. Sure, I have this host, and Netscape is running on it. But of course the host does not have to be reachable from other Netscape programs on other hosts (ie, no httpd required). In the same way, I have this host and it can send mail. But of course the host is not required to be able to receive mail. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 22:59 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 1:23 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 2:38 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-25 9:28 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw) * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May 2001 | Really? Why should a login have anything to do with a mail address? Because a mailbox is defined as type "addr-spec", which is" 3.4.1. Addr-spec specification An addr-spec is a specific Internet identifier that contains a locally interpreted string followed by the at-sign character ("@", ASCII value 64) followed by an Internet domain. The locally interpreted string is either a quoted-string or a dot-atom. If the string can be represented as a dot-atom (that is, it contains no characters other than atext characters or "." surrounded by atext The defacto standard for the locally interpreted string is one's login name, has been that way for more than 30 years. | Why should a FQDN be (the after-@ part of) a mail address? Because a domain-literal is exactly that. Together, "login @ fqdn" absolutely identifies the sender given a reasonably configured system. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ Earth, presumably from outer space. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 1:23 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 2:38 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-25 4:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 9:30 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 9:28 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 2:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May 2001 > | Really? Why should a login have anything to do with a mail address? > > Because a mailbox is defined as type "addr-spec", which is" > > 3.4.1. Addr-spec specification > > An addr-spec is a specific Internet identifier that contains a > locally interpreted string followed by the at-sign character ("@", > ASCII value 64) followed by an Internet domain. The locally > interpreted string is either a quoted-string or a dot-atom. If the > string can be represented as a dot-atom (that is, it contains no > characters other than atext characters or "." surrounded by atext > > The defacto standard for the locally interpreted string is one's login > name, has been that way for more than 30 years. Sure. But by requiring it to always be true is adding unnecessary restrictions. The RFC doesn't, so why should Gnus? > | Why should a FQDN be (the after-@ part of) a mail address? > > Because a domain-literal is exactly that. > > Together, "login @ fqdn" absolutely identifies the sender given a > reasonably configured system. For some weird definition of "reasonably configured". RFC2822 requires a valid mailbox in the sender field. Can you please point to the specification that guarantees that "login @ fqdn" is a valid mailbox? Bjørn -- I mean, How can you be so primitive? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 2:38 ` Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 4:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 9:30 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 4:12 UTC (permalink / raw) * "Bjørn Mork" <bmork@dod.no> on Thu, 24 May 2001 | RFC2822 requires a valid mailbox in the sender field. Can you please | point to the specification that guarantees that "login @ fqdn" is a | valid mailbox? Already did. Four or five times, now. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 2:38 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-25 4:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 9:30 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding On 25 May 2001, Bjørn Mork wrote: > RFC2822 requires a valid mailbox in the sender field. Can you please > point to the specification that guarantees that "login @ fqdn" is a > valid mailbox? Statements from Rat I remember are `on a reasonably configured system' and `it's been this way for 30 years'. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 1:23 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 2:38 ` Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 9:28 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 20:08 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On 24 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May > 2001 >| Really? Why should a login have anything to do with a mail >| address? > > Because a mailbox is defined as type "addr-spec", which is" > > 3.4.1. Addr-spec specification > > An addr-spec is a specific Internet identifier that contains a > locally interpreted string followed by the at-sign character > ("@", ASCII value 64) followed by an Internet domain. The > locally interpreted string is either a quoted-string or a > dot-atom. If the string can be represented as a dot-atom (that > is, it contains no characters other than atext characters or "." > surrounded by atext > > The defacto standard for the locally interpreted string is one's > login name, has been that way for more than 30 years. The defacto standard for the locally interpreted string has changed. These days, people want to hide the login names for security purposes. >| Why should a FQDN be (the after-@ part of) a mail address? > > Because a domain-literal is exactly that. A domain-literal need not be a FQDN, it can also be a domain name. For example, uni-dortmund.de is a possible domain-literal, even though there is no such host. > Together, "login @ fqdn" absolutely identifies the sender given a > reasonably configured system. The way I see it, your requirements for `reasonably configured' are pretty steep, and what you want makes life really hard for people working on systems which don't match your idea of `reasonably configured'. This is pointless. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 9:28 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 20:08 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 20:30 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 21:49 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw) * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Fri, 25 May 2001 | The defacto standard for the locally interpreted string has changed. | These days, people want to hide the login names for security purposes. That is what things like sendmail's rewrite rules and tables are for. | A domain-literal need not be a FQDN, it can also be a domain name. | For example, uni-dortmund.de is a possible domain-literal, even though | there is no such host. A domain name is by its nature fully qualified. | The way I see it, your requirements for `reasonably configured' are | pretty steep, and what you want makes life really hard for people | working on systems which don't match your idea of `reasonably | configured'. This is pointless. While I tend to be very strict when it comes to networking, doing it right means that things are easier for everyone, not harder. It is when things are done wrong that life is made difficult for some people. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 20:08 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 20:30 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 22:00 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-26 5:09 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 21:49 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Fri, 25 May 2001 >| The defacto standard for the locally interpreted string has changed. >| These days, people want to hide the login names for security purposes. > > That is what things like sendmail's rewrite rules and tables are for. The fact that it can be done outside of Gnus doesn't alone make a good case that it shouldn't also be possible to do it within Gnus. Not all MTAs may have such features. >| A domain-literal need not be a FQDN, it can also be a domain name. >| For example, uni-dortmund.de is a possible domain-literal, even though >| there is no such host. > > A domain name is by its nature fully qualified. RFC 1034 doesn't use the term "fully qualified", but it does use "absolute" and "relative". A domain name is a sequence of labels which, in text representation, are separated by dots. An absolute domain name is one whose last label is the empty string, which designates the root domain - thus, its last character is a dot. Anything else is relative, and is subject to absolutification according to local configuration. (Also, there is no notion of a "hostname" which is different from "domain name"; a hostname is simply a domain name with an address record, and the term "hostname" is not used in the DNS RFCs.) In practice, people think of a domain name containing a dot *anywhere* as being absolute ("fully qualified"), and only those with *no* dots as being relative. The only reason people can get away with this is because their own local configurations make it work. The name "www.gnus.org." is absolute, but the name "www.gnus.org" is not. The most common way of making it absolute is to first try it in the root domain (i.e., just add a dot at the end), and then if that fails, try it in the local domain(s). OTOH, the name "www" is usually looked for first in the local domain(s) and then in the root. But the presence of an internal dot only affects the local absolutification configuration, not whether the name is absolute to begin with. I've set user-mail-address to end with "." (I think this violates 2822, but I won't care until it actually breaks something), and I set message-syntax-checks to include (from . disabled), but my From fields still have no trailing ".". :( Anyone know how to do this? I don't want to depend on others' local configurations. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 20:30 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 22:00 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-26 5:09 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw) prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes: > I've set user-mail-address to end with "." (I think this violates > 2822, but I won't care until it actually breaks something), and I set > message-syntax-checks to include (from . disabled), but my From fields > still have no trailing ".". :( Anyone know how to do this? I don't > want to depend on others' local configurations. Umm, this reminds me of the time I defined a wildcard MX record for a domain name that was in my search list. A few trailing dots might have saved it, but who uses that? At least I learnt one reason why wildcard MX records are discouraged... Bjørn -- Why, it's a wonderful day! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 20:30 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 22:00 ` Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-26 5:09 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-27 22:34 ` Paul Jarc 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-26 5:09 UTC (permalink / raw) * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Fri, 25 May 2001 | The fact that it can be done outside of Gnus doesn't alone make a good | case that it shouldn't also be possible to do it within Gnus. Not all | MTAs may have such features. Any MTA that cannot do header rewriting has no business playing mail gateway for a firewalled site. The other side of that is if your MTA is configured to do all the rewriting, you can use *any* MUA you want and everything, not just Gnus, will just work, right out of the box. Making all this transparent to the end users is a Good Thing(tm). [...] | RFC 1034 doesn't use the term "fully qualified", but it does use | "absolute" and "relative". [...] The point of bringing up RFC 1034's less than precise language is...? Within the context of mail and news, the root-level dot is understood to be there even if it is not actually there. I really don't see the point of this digression. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 5:09 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-27 22:34 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 23:14 ` Stainless Steel Rat 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Fri, 25 May 2001 >| The fact that it can be done outside of Gnus doesn't alone make a good >| case that it shouldn't also be possible to do it within Gnus. Not all >| MTAs may have such features. > > Any MTA that cannot do header rewriting has no business playing mail > gateway for a firewalled site. I'm not sure that's true in all cases. I think it's possible to set things up such that no rewriting is needed on the gateway. > The other side of that is if your MTA is configured to do all the > rewriting, you can use *any* MUA you want and everything, not just Gnus, > will just work, right out of the box. Making all this transparent to the > end users is a Good Thing(tm). Yes. Another way to make things work is to know that 2822 doesn't require any particular address for Sender, or any software effort to generate one, or any software effort to verify a user-supplied one. >| RFC 1034 doesn't use the term "fully qualified", but it does use >| "absolute" and "relative". [...] > > The point of bringing up RFC 1034's less than precise language is...? This part of 1034 is perfectly precise. But I though some folks might be interested; people often toss around "fqdn" without knowing the whole story. I also wanted to clarify that there is no necessary difference between a "hostname" and a "domain name" in terms of, e.g., the number of dots. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-27 22:34 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 23:14 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-27 23:31 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-27 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw) * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Sun, 27 May 2001 | I'm not sure that's true in all cases. I think it's possible to set | things up such that no rewriting is needed on the gateway. What do you mean, you are not sure? Have you never set up a masqerading SMTP gateway? Have you never had to deal with users who don't know what the hell that means? Sounds like you never have. I do, every working day. Everything you have said probably looks good to you on paper, but it is worthless in the real world. Because the users cannot tweak Sender and Message-ID fields with MUAs like Outlook. You'll have to get in line behind me when it comes to saying that Outlook is broken, but the fact is that the majority of people at my site use it. I needed something that works for them. That something is masqerading, and it automagically works for me using Gnus as well. The last thing I will say to you, Paul, is to shut up until you have some real world experience in dealing with mail handling, because right now you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are just making things difficult for everyone by spewing crap for answers. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ Earth, presumably from outer space. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-27 23:14 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-27 23:31 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Sun, 27 May 2001 >| I'm not sure that's true in all cases. I think it's possible to set >| things up such that no rewriting is needed on the gateway. > > What do you mean, you are not sure? Have you never set up a masqerading > SMTP gateway? Have you never had to deal with users who don't know what > the hell that means? Sounds like you never have. That's right. But who cares? I'm not saying that it's feasible in all situations - only for some. Possibly this would require a controlled environment, with no clueless users to deal with, etc. You may say that this is not "the real world", or that you don't care about dealing with such circumstances, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist, can't be created, or are prohibited by any RFC. > Everything you have said probably looks good to you on paper, but it > is worthless in the real world. I never claimed it was useful in what you think of as "the real world". I only claim that it could be useful in some situations, and it is permitted by the RFCs; in particular, I do not claim anything about how common such situations might be. > The last thing I will say to you, Paul, is to shut up until you have some > real world experience in dealing with mail handling, because right now you > have no idea what you are talking about, and you are just making things > difficult for everyone by spewing crap for answers. No, *you* don't know what I'm talking about. You think I'm trying to be ambitious and make (logically) strong claims which are false. And I agree that those claims are false, but those aren't the claims I'm making. I'm making (logically) weaker claims which are true. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 20:08 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 20:30 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 21:49 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-26 5:29 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On Fri, 25 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > While I tend to be very strict when it comes to networking, doing it > right means that things are easier for everyone, not harder. It is > when things are done wrong that life is made difficult for some > people. I'm thinking about the people who are not in a position to do it right, but have to live with what they have: a customer at a dialup isp has no control over the ISP's MTA config, for example. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 21:49 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-26 5:29 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-26 22:26 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-26 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw) * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Fri, 25 May 2001 | I'm thinking about the people who are not in a position to do it | right, but have to live with what they have: a customer at a dialup | isp has no control over the ISP's MTA config, for example. My take on that is, if I am paying for the service then I have a reasonable expectation that the service not be broken. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 5:29 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-26 22:26 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-26 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On 26 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Fri, 25 May > 2001 >| I'm thinking about the people who are not in a position to do it >| right, but have to live with what they have: a customer at a dialup >| isp has no control over the ISP's MTA config, for example. > > My take on that is, if I am paying for the service then I have a > reasonable expectation that the service not be broken. Well, they don't _say_ that SMTP is guaranteed to work. Maybe they only sell HTTP... (And Realaudio and this Internet radio stuff, maybe.) kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 21:20 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 21:31 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 22:59 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 23:18 ` Barry Fishman 2001-05-25 1:30 ` Stainless Steel Rat ` (2 more replies) 2001-05-25 2:01 ` Bjørn Mork 3 siblings, 3 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Barry Fishman @ 2001-05-24 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw) You posted to Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > But if login @ fqdn is not an address at all then something in the system > is not configured correctly. My login@fqdn is "barry@ecube.local". The closest thing to a local mail address is my pop server address "barry_fishman@att.net". I connect to the internet using a PPP connection PAP authentication with a variety of addresses. At the moment I'm at "12.78.17.131", but this varies each call and is probably bogus anyway. I send mail by direct smtp connection to mailhost.att.net. So what would be my properly configured sender address? How could I fix my configuration to have one? Please be specific. My gut feeling is that it is up to the smtp server on mailhost.att.net to provide it. In this case I need to prevent gnus from creating one even though my "From:" address does not match my login@fqdn address. Presently I am just doing a: ;; Fix message send address (I don't have a real hostname (defun message-make-sender () "Return own mail address as sender" (message-make-address)) Barry Fishman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 23:18 ` Barry Fishman @ 2001-05-25 1:30 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 16:06 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 2:10 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 3:08 ` Russ Allbery 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 1:30 UTC (permalink / raw) * Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> on Thu, 24 May 2001 | My login@fqdn is "barry@ecube.local". *snrk*. That is not a legal fqdn, or did someone create the "local" TLD when I blinked? :) | The closest thing to a local mail address is my pop server address | "barry_fishman@att.net". I connect to the internet using a PPP | connection PAP authentication with a variety of addresses. At the moment | I'm at "12.78.17.131", but this varies each call and is probably bogus | anyway. I send mail by direct smtp connection to mailhost.att.net. The IP is not bogus. The fact that AT&T has no A record for it is bogus. That is probably a real pain when you hit an SSH server that refuses your connection because it cannot do a reverse IP lookup. | So what would be my properly configured sender address? How could I | fix my configuration to have one? Please be specific. There should be an A record in att.net's DNS associated with that IP, and it should include that name in the DHCP packet it gives you when you make your dialup connection. Your host should set its name to the name specified in that packet for the duration of the session. What you do when you are not connected is up to you. | My gut feeling is that it is up to the smtp server on mailhost.att.net | to provide it. In this case I need to prevent gnus from creating one | even though my "From:" address does not match my login@fqdn address. Given that att.net won't let you do things right, dumping it on them is probably not a bad thing to do. They've screwed it up so let them deal with it. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 1:30 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 16:06 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| My login@fqdn is "barry@ecube.local". > > *snrk*. > > That is not a legal fqdn, or did someone create the "local" TLD when I > blinked? :) Creating a TLD is easy. Getting ICANN's root servers to serve it is the hard part. :) >| The closest thing to a local mail address is my pop server address >| "barry_fishman@att.net". I connect to the internet using a PPP >| connection PAP authentication with a variety of addresses. At the moment >| I'm at "12.78.17.131", but this varies each call and is probably bogus >| anyway. I send mail by direct smtp connection to mailhost.att.net. > > The IP is not bogus. The fact that AT&T has no A record for it is bogus. We don't know whether there's an A record with that address, because we don't know what name to look up to find out; we only know that there's no PTR record for the name 131.17.78.12.in-addr.arpa. Please stop pretending to know about DNS. > That is probably a real pain when you hit an SSH server that refuses your > connection because it cannot do a reverse IP lookup. Maybe his provider gives him some way around that. Since we don't know, we can't say that this setup is bogus. > There should be an A record in att.net's DNS associated with that IP, and > it should include that name in the DHCP packet it gives you when you make > your dialup connection. FAYK, this is already the case. > Your host should set its name to the name specified in that packet > for the duration of the session. I don't agree. The host should use the hostname provided by DHCP for dealings with that same network, but not necessarily globally, nor on other networks the host may be on. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 23:18 ` Barry Fishman 2001-05-25 1:30 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 2:10 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 4:24 ` Stainless Steel Rat ` (2 more replies) 2001-05-25 3:08 ` Russ Allbery 2 siblings, 3 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-25 2:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> writes: > So what would be my properly configured sender address? How could I > fix my configuration to have one? Please be specific. > > My gut feeling is that it is up to the smtp server on mailhost.att.net > to provide it. In this case I need to prevent gnus from creating one > even though my "From:" address does not match my login@fqdn address. > Presently I am just doing a: > > ;; Fix message send address (I don't have a real hostname > (defun message-make-sender () > "Return own mail address as sender" > (message-make-address)) I got hollered at on comp.editors for having a made up rhs of message id which is somewhat related to this discussion. Describing another situation where it isn't really clear what I should have for a From or sender address. My situation isn't quite as complex as Barrys but is probably fairly typical of home users in US. I have a dsl connection on static ip. Right now my router (not a machine with an OS running on it) has the IP address assigned to me. My computer has an internal class c 192 address as do the others on my home network. All are capable of sending mail, all are capable of recieving mail, but not at the static ip address, But at my IP's mail machine address. The router is NAT enabled and knows who sent what. >From what I'm seeing on this thread, the router which has my static IP address is what the sender would be derived from, however it cannot recieve mail for that address, only for either my IP domain or newsguy To complicate things a little further. I don't actually use my IPs address but have a newsguy account I do most of my mail with. That from address uses newguy.com domain but is not my machine but the address of a machine several hundred miles from me. I've been thoroughly confused about these matters for quite some time. I'd be interested to hear Rats or others views of what I should be doing regarding From and sender. (Message-ID would be a bonus). Currently I've told gnus to stick my IP smtp server address in Message-ID. And disabled sender generation. (defun message-make-fqdn () "My hacked message-id." "ptw.com") ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 2:10 ` Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-25 4:24 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 5:05 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 16:17 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-26 17:02 ` Barry Fishman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 4:24 UTC (permalink / raw) * Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> on Thu, 24 May 2001 | From what I'm seeing on this thread, the router which has my static IP | address is what the sender would be derived from, however it cannot | recieve mail for that address, only for either my IP domain or newsguy Somewhere in this you should have your MTA (or plural) masqerade outgoing headers so that anyone on the outside of your firewall sees nothing that points to anything inside your firewall. This is easiest to manage if you have one mail gate and everything behind the firewall uses it as the smart host. | I'd be interested to hear Rats or others views of what I should be doing | regarding From and sender. (Message-ID would be a bonus). >From should be reader@newsguy.com. Sender should start out being something appropriate for the sending machine inside your firewall, and be masqeraded (and possibly rewritten entirely) by your mail gate with your One True FQDN associated with your single IP address. Message-ID strings can be simpler or harder, depending on how militant one is. The one absolute requirement is that any given message's Message-ID be unique. Usually the easiest way to accomplish this is to hash/mash login, FQDN and time stamp. You might be better off telling Gnus not to generate Message-ID strings either, and let your mail gate handle it. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 4:24 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 5:05 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 16:13 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-25 5:05 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > Somewhere in this you should have your MTA (or plural) masqerade outgoing > headers so that anyone on the outside of your firewall sees nothing that > points to anything inside your firewall. This is easiest to manage if you > have one mail gate and everything behind the firewall uses it as the smart > host. Ahh, that tallies with what I've been doing.. > | I'd be interested to hear Rats or others views of what I should be doing > | regarding From and sender. (Message-ID would be a bonus). [...] > Message-ID strings can be simpler or harder, depending on how militant one > is. The one absolute requirement is that any given message's Message-ID be > unique. Usually the easiest way to accomplish this is to hash/mash login, > FQDN and time stamp. You might be better off telling Gnus not to generate > Message-ID strings either, and let your mail gate handle it. Possibly a bit OT but on the Message-ID part, how big of a concern is it that the rhs be a real FQDN (or is it mailbox?) I thought I recalled this being discussed heavily here at one point and some consensus being that it wasn't to important. And in keeping with your comments, the real item is uniqueness. I get a little confused about the uniqness issue. Not really seeing how a mail machine name is more unique than some homeboy thing I hacked in there (rhs). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 5:05 ` Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-25 16:13 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes: > Possibly a bit OT but on the Message-ID part, how big of a concern is > it that the rhs be a real FQDN (or is it mailbox?) It should uniquely identify the host that generated the Message-ID - but it need not be the host's FQDN. The point is that there should be no chance of another host using that same identifier by accident. If you control all of domain.com, and you want the host foo.domain.com to use msgid.foo.domain.com in its Message-IDs, feel free to do that - just make sure other hosts in domain.com respect that convention. > I get a little confused about the uniqness issue. Not really seeing > how a mail machine name is more unique than some homeboy thing I > hacked in there (rhs). If you don't control your DNS domain, you can't ensure that your convention will be respected. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 2:10 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 4:24 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 16:17 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 17:50 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-26 17:02 ` Barry Fishman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes: > I'd be interested to hear Rats or others views of what I should be doing > regarding From and sender. As long as you're sending just your own messages, you don't need Sender at all. (You can read RFC 2822, 3.6.2 for yourself to confirm that the require Rat claims is there, isn't.) It's all a lot simpler than this thread makes it out to be. > Currently I've told gnus to stick my IP smtp server address in > Message-ID. Don't do that unless you control the SMTP server, and know that it won't generate Message-IDs using that same RHS. See my other message for more details. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 16:17 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 17:50 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 18:16 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 21:55 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-25 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw) prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes: > > > Currently I've told gnus to stick my IP smtp server address in > > Message-ID. > > Don't do that unless you control the SMTP server, and know that it > won't generate Message-IDs using that same RHS. See my other message > for more details. Now I'm really confused.. Wait... shouldn't that smtp server AlWAYS use the same rhs? Pauls' other post in part: > It should uniquely identify the host that generated the Message-ID - > but it need not be the host's FQDN. The point is that there should be > no chance of another host using that same identifier by accident. If > you control all of domain.com, and you want the host foo.domain.com to > use msgid.foo.domain.com in its Message-IDs, feel free to do that - > just make sure other hosts in domain.com respect that convention. The machine has a name like (/etc/hosts entry): reader.local.lan 192.168.xx.xxx reader There must be several (100/1000 ?) that could possibly have that FQDN. How is this uniqueness obtained? If I allowed gnus to generate the Message-ID (rhs) by its own devices, then it would be: Message-ID: <m1hey9z673.fsf@reader.local.lan> Instead of: Message-ID: <m1hey9z673.fsf@ptw.com> Hard to see how either of these can be guarranteed to be unique any more than: Message-ID: <m1hey9z673.fsf@super.clever.insertion> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 17:50 ` Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-25 18:16 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 19:45 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 21:55 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes: > prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes: >> > Currently I've told gnus to stick my IP smtp server address in >> > Message-ID. >> >> Don't do that unless you control the SMTP server, and know that it >> won't generate Message-IDs using that same RHS. See my other message >> for more details. > > Now I'm really confused.. > Wait... shouldn't that smtp server AlWAYS use the same rhs? Probably. But if you control it, you could configure it to do otherwise. The main principle is that two different hosts should use two different domain-like things for their Message-IDs. So if you're using your SMTP server's hostname to generate Message-IDs on a different host, then you should make sure that the SMTP server doesn't use the same thing. If you don't control the SMTP server, then you can't ensure this, and so you should use something else on your other host. > The machine has a name like (/etc/hosts entry): > reader.local.lan 192.168.xx.xxx reader > There must be several (100/1000 ?) that could possibly have that FQDN. > How is this uniqueness obtained? Normally - i.e., "normal" at the time Message-ID was designed - you'd have a static FQDN on the Internet, and you'd use that. If possible, you should set things up so that Message-IDs are generated by hosts with static FQDNs on the Internet, and those hosts should use (probably) their own FQDNs for the RHS. Hosts that don't have static FQDNs should pass along the message without a Message-ID, and the the host that has the static FQDN generate one. This may require special configuration on both sides. If you can't do that, then try to use the FQDN of a host with a static FQDN on the Internet and which you control, so you can tweak each of their generation algorithms, if necessary, to ensure that the two won't ever generate the same LHS by accident. If you can't do that, then you're stuck, and all you can do is make a best effort. Throw some entropy into the RHS (maybe something like o4igh2r3.username.this-does-not-exist.your-isp.com, where the first part is preferably different for each message), and explain to anyone who objects that Message-ID was not designed with your situation in mind, and this is the best you can do. > Hard to see how either of these can be guarranteed to be unique any > more than: > Message-ID: <m1hey9z673.fsf@super.clever.insertion> They can't, except that by convention, the RHS is at least based on the FQDN of the Internet host where the Message-ID was generated. If you stray too far from that convention, you run the risk of choosing the same clever insertion that someone else did. Stay as close to it as your situation allows - if you can use a host's FQDN, use it; otherwise, use your organization's domain name along with something which is unique in that context, etc. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 18:16 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 19:45 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 21:59 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-25 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw) prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes: > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hosts that don't > have static FQDNs should pass along the message without a Message-ID, Of the several choices presented, the one above looks like the only operational one for me. Can someone remind me how to turn off local message-id generation? PS-- I hope Eli doesn't see this, but I couldn't find it with an `i' search on `message-id'..... he he. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 19:45 ` Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-25 21:59 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding On 25 May 2001, Harry Putnam wrote: > Of the several choices presented, the one above looks like the only > operational one for me. Can someone remind me how to turn off local > message-id generation? The variable message-syntax-checks ought to do the trick. Or you say this: (setq message-required-news-headers (delete 'Message-ID message-required-news-headers)) kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 17:50 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 18:16 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 21:55 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 23:40 ` Harry Putnam 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding On 25 May 2001, Harry Putnam wrote: > If I allowed gnus to generate the Message-ID (rhs) by its own > devices, then it would be: > > Message-ID: <m1hey9z673.fsf@reader.local.lan> > > Instead of: > Message-ID: <m1hey9z673.fsf@ptw.com> > > Hard to see how either of these can be guarranteed to be unique any > more than: > Message-ID: <m1hey9z673.fsf@super.clever.insertion> I think you post via Newsguy, right? Hm. Here's how to find a good rhs for the message-id: talk to the news server admin at newsguy. They might have reserved a set of rhs entries for this case. For example, they could say that the rhs jrl.customers.newsguy.com, where jrl is the login name or account name or whatever you have that identifies you, can be used. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 21:55 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 23:40 ` Harry Putnam [not found] ` <87y9rknm6e.fsf@bandersnatch.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me> ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-25 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > I think you post via Newsguy, right? Hm. Here's how to find a good > rhs for the message-id: talk to the news server admin at newsguy. Post yes, but mail is sent out thru my IP smtp server. > They might have reserved a set of rhs entries for this case. For Possible, I'll check it out So is your thinking that I should use two rhs for message ID? One for usenet and a different one for mail? My outgoing smtp server is not newsguy, it could be but its just not as simple to setup and its slower that way, This seems pretty similar to the case about sender header, in that the question is which machine should put its `John Hancock'* on it. In fact the rhs of message-ed parrallels `Sender' in many ways. [* `John Hancock' is used this way in american idiom to mean signature. John Hancock was one of the original signers of our constitution] PS- I've removed any Message-id from this message on my end, so will see what smtp server does. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <87y9rknm6e.fsf@bandersnatch.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>]
* Re: Sender header? [not found] ` <87y9rknm6e.fsf@bandersnatch.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me> @ 2001-05-26 16:05 ` Harry Putnam 2001-06-02 21:44 ` Amos Gouaux 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-26 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw) Richard Hoskins <rmh@bandersnatch> writes: > Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes: > [...] > > > [* `John Hancock' is used this way in american idiom to mean > > signature. John Hancock was one of the original signers of our > > constitution] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > You misspelled "Declaration of Independance." > > AFAIK, Mr. Hancock wasn't a member of the Constitutional Convention. Well at least I didn't spell it `Magna Carta' There goes my career as an authority on historical american idiom. My attempt was mainly for Kai, who likes to know about stuff like that. Sorry Kai, I'll research before post in future... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 16:05 ` Harry Putnam @ 2001-06-02 21:44 ` Amos Gouaux 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Amos Gouaux @ 2001-06-02 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Frightening thread. Personally, what I'm most concerned about is the envelope sender. If I set an identity in PINE, the "Sender:" will be me@mymachine.domain, but the "From:" and the envelope sender (eventually "Return-Path:") will be the identity address. If the envelope sender doesn't match the "From:" (before posting to a list), then it's really hell to deal with. Currently, to deal with this in gnus, I use the following (this was done a while ago, so the comments might be way out of date now): ;;; Using smtpmail because it allows me to easily keep the "From:" address ;;; and envelope sender the same, just by setting `user-mail-address' via ;;; some posting styles (see below). Why is this important? Well, some ;;; MLMs are really anal about using the envelope sender rather than the ;;; "From:" address. So this just makes sure I don't have too many headaches. (load "smtpmail" nil t) ;;;; loading my hacked version..... (add-hook 'message-load-hook (function (lambda () ;;; Envelope sender still a problem... try this... (add-to-list 'message-syntax-checks '(sender . disabled)) (require 'smtpmail) (setq send-mail-function 'smtpmail-send-it) (setq message-send-mail-function 'smtpmail-send-it) (setq smtpmail-smtp-server "smtp.utdallas.edu")))) I guess I also have to add that while the new RFCs do seem to clarify some points, there still seems to be some room for interpretation. For example, take this portion from 2821: B. Generating SMTP Commands from RFC 822 Headers 2. The return address in the MAIL command SHOULD, if possible, be derived from the system's identity for the submitting (local) user, and the "From:" header field otherwise. If there is a system identity available, it SHOULD also be copied to the Sender header field if it is different from the address in the From header field. (Any Sender field that was already there SHOULD be removed.) which seems to confirm what Rat has been saying. HOWEVER, the very next sentence reads: Systems may provide a way for submitters to override the envelope return address, but may want to restrict its use to privileged users. This will not prevent mail forgery, but may lessen its incidence; see section 7.1. Well, this seems to weaken the SHOULDs above. Section 7.1 then goes on to say: Efforts to make it more difficult for users to set envelope return path and header "From" fields to point to valid addresses other than their own are largely misguided: they frustrate legitimate applications in which mail is sent by one user on behalf of another or in which error (or normal) replies should be directed to a special address. Oh well, so much for that. Not meaning to be a pain in the ass, but I sure rely on such identities (with Cyrus shared folders) bloody heavily........ -- Amos ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 23:40 ` Harry Putnam [not found] ` <87y9rknm6e.fsf@bandersnatch.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me> @ 2001-05-26 22:21 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-27 21:39 ` Paul Jarc 2 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-26 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding On 25 May 2001, Harry Putnam wrote: > So is your thinking that I should use two rhs for message ID? > One for usenet and a different one for mail? Well, afaik Message-ID in both news and mail is only required to be unique. Now if you know that noone is using the newsguy rhs for news articles, it's also reasonable to assume that noone is using the newsguy rhs for mail, either. kai PS: The German for `John Hancock' is `Bill'. Interesting, isn't it? (Actually, it's `Willi' which is the German short form of Wilhelm, which is German for William.) Maybe there was a German by that name. Hm. Yes, we had a monarch. Emperor(?) William the first(?) I think... I have no idea if it's him, though. Any Germans here to elucidate? -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 23:40 ` Harry Putnam [not found] ` <87y9rknm6e.fsf@bandersnatch.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me> 2001-05-26 22:21 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-27 21:39 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 22:00 ` Harry Putnam 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes: > John Hancock was one of the original signers of our constitution] He may (or may not) have signed the Constitution; he's famous for his signature on the Declaration of Independence. > PS- I've removed any Message-id from this message on my end, so will > see what smtp server does. I see: Message-ID: <m17kz5xaln.fsf@ptw.com> But if this were generated by an SMTP receiver, then I would expect it to be mixed in with the Received fields, which it wasn't. Are you sure you disabled msgid generation entirely, both in Gnus and local MTA? paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-27 21:39 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 22:00 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-27 22:22 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-27 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw) prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes: > I see: Message-ID: <m17kz5xaln.fsf@ptw.com> > But if this were generated by an SMTP receiver, then I would expect it > to be mixed in with the Received fields, which it wasn't. Are you > sure you disabled msgid generation entirely, both in Gnus and local > MTA? Yeah, so I noticed. I just removed message-id field when mailing. I have a variable set that puts all outgoing (gnus generated) headers in the compose buffer. I thought just removing it there would cause gnus to omit it. Apparently not. Apparently gnus regenerated it on send because that is a gnus/emacs Message-id. Apparently that doesn't work. The method Kai posted does work, but still sendmail or something generates a local message-id. I've decided for the moment to just generate the right thing with gnus by hacking. Doesn't seem possible to stop message id generation locally. Gnus is easy, but the mta is another story. What a big pain in the ass the whole thing is. I'd hoped to disable message id generation locally and let my outgoing smtp IP machine handle it. But Just stopping gnus doens'nt produce that effect either. I tried in other messges else were after disabling gnus altogether and my Machine name still gets stuck in there by sendmail I guess. Can one stop sendmail from generating a message-id? If I can do that then mutt pine or whatever will all stop sticking in my local machine name I hope. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-27 22:00 ` Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-27 22:22 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes: > The method Kai posted does work, but still sendmail or something > generates a local message-id. I've decided for the moment to just > generate the right thing with gnus by hacking. Doesn't seem > possible to stop message id generation locally. Gnus is easy, but > the mta is another story. qmail makes it easy to use a particular hostname for Message-IDs. Disabling Message-ID generation would take a little hacking, though. But have you checked whether your ISP's SMTP server will generate Message-IDs? I wouldn't expect it to. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 2:10 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 4:24 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 16:17 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-26 17:02 ` Barry Fishman 2001-05-26 20:20 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-27 23:42 ` Paul Jarc 2 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Barry Fishman @ 2001-05-26 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw) Thanks for all the help. Since I don't know how to respond to multiple useful messages at the same time I'll try. I think this is important since there must be a many users that are comming in via ppp phone connections that consider only windows machines. I think the gnus manual should deal with it. I didn't find anything. Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> on Thu, 26, May 2001 SSR> * Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> on Thu, 26 May 2001 SSR> | My login@fqdn is "barry@ecube.local". SSR> SSR> * snrk*. SSR> SSR> That is not a legal fqdn, or did someone create the "local" TLD when I SSR> blinked? :) I did! Internet domain setup on unix requires a domain name. Like most people I don't want to buy one. Rather than supply something that looks correct, but isn't, I use local, which I think is clear in meaning. I don't spend all my time connected through att.net. Even when I am connected, I am not sure what my A record would be. It does not show up in my PPP/PAP dialog. SSR> Given that att.net won't let you do things right, dumping it on them is SSR> probably not a bad thing to do. They've screwed it up so let them deal SSR> with it. I've tried that. The just use the @ecube.local which they got from my SMTP HELO, add their dommain and then the regular hashing. I finally decided to use a unique identifier (although not really a legal domain name, my e-mail address. It was just as unique and a lot shorter. Stealing the idea from: Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes: HP> I got hollered at on comp.editors for having a made up rhs of message HP> id which is somewhat related to this discussion. HP> HP> Describing another situation where it isn't really clear what I HP> should have for a From or sender address. HP> HP> Currently I've told gnus to stick my IP smtp server address in HP> Message-ID. And disabled sender generation. HP> HP> (defun message-make-fqdn () HP> "My hacked message-id." HP> "ptw.com") Here you are posing as another machine, A sane person would expect the Message-ID's to still be unique with all the hashing added. However, I'm a programmer and would want to at least make my fqdn unique and identifiable. Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: RA> (setq message-syntax-checks '((sender . disabled))) RA> RA> has worked great for years. Hopefully it hasn't been broken in later RA> versions of Gnus. It should be the default. This seems better. Personally I think that "Sender:" is like "From:" and "ReplyTo:", chosen by person/agent sending the mail and not automaticlly produced. Defaults are nice, but if gnus wants too construct a "Sender:", it probably should be set to the person who wrote the elisp that constructs a sender. ;) Mail transport agents have their own fields to fill in if they don't like the from field. On 25 May 2001, Harry Putnam wrote: HP> Of the several choices presented, the one above looks like the only HP> operational one for me. Can someone remind me how to turn off local HP> message-id generation? Kai Grossjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE> writes: KG> The variable message-syntax-checks ought to do the trick. Or you say KG> this: (setq message-required-news-headers (delete 'Message-ID KG> message-required-news-headers)) Until I can confirm a A record, I'll use the elisp: ;; I don't really have valid FQDN information so clean up header (setq message-syntax-checks '((sender . disabled))) (defun smtpmail-fqdn () "Supply a domain which is meaningful but wrong (my email address)" "barry_fishman.att.net") (defun message-make-fqdn () "Supply a unique root for message id" (smtpmail-fqdn)) I have Kai's removal of Message-ID commented out since I think gnus's Message-ID is much shorter. This seems to leave behind the most meaningful mail headers. Probably too meaningful if you which to avoid spam. Barry ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 17:02 ` Barry Fishman @ 2001-05-26 20:20 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-27 23:38 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 23:42 ` Paul Jarc 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-26 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> writes: > (defun message-make-fqdn () > "Supply a unique root for message id" > (smtpmail-fqdn)) What do you get with that? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 20:20 ` Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-27 23:38 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes: > Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> writes: >> (defun message-make-fqdn () >> "Supply a unique root for message id" >> (smtpmail-fqdn)) > > What do you get with that? Just above that defun, he wrote: (defun smtpmail-fqdn () "Supply a domain which is meaningful but wrong (my email address)" "barry_fishman.att.net") paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 17:02 ` Barry Fishman 2001-05-26 20:20 ` Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-27 23:42 ` Paul Jarc 1 sibling, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> writes: > I don't spend all my time connected through att.net. Even when I am > connected, I am not sure what my A record would be. It does not > show up in my PPP/PAP dialog. The A (address) record would be a mapping from a domain name (like "somehost.att.net") to an IP address. It would be added to att.net's DNS servers when you connect. It wouldn't appear as such in your dialup dialog, but the same information it contains - your Internet hostname and address - probably does appear. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 23:18 ` Barry Fishman 2001-05-25 1:30 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 2:10 ` Harry Putnam @ 2001-05-25 3:08 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 4:28 ` Stainless Steel Rat ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-25 3:08 UTC (permalink / raw) Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> writes: > Presently I am just doing a: > ;; Fix message send address (I don't have a real hostname > (defun message-make-sender () > "Return own mail address as sender" > (message-make-address)) (setq message-syntax-checks '((sender . disabled))) has worked great for years. Hopefully it hasn't been broken in later versions of Gnus. It should be the default. I've heard all of the same arguments that Rat's making many, many times. I don't think they're supported by the RFCs (and the discussion I've read on DRUMS backs that up), and whether they are or not, the Sender header is broken beyond recovery and shouldn't be encouraged. Like automatically converting eight spaces to a tab or the Lines header on Usenet, it's one of those ideas that had some marginal utility originally but never actually worked very well in practice and is now better forgotten. Sender is useful if you are using in the From field an address that has *nothing* to do with the entity that actually sent the mail, in which case it's sometimes useful to put some valid mailbox in there. Anything that automatically generates the header is just going to cause far more problems than it solves. Tracing is what Received headers are for. The only real widespread use of Sender these days is in mailing lists (particularly ones based on Majordomo); hopefully List-ID and relatives will replace that last use with a better-designed system. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 3:08 ` Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-25 4:28 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 5:21 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 9:23 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 11:46 ` Per Abrahamsen 2001-05-25 16:21 ` Paul Jarc 2 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 4:28 UTC (permalink / raw) * Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> on Thu, 24 May 2001 | (setq message-syntax-checks '((sender . disabled))) | has worked great for years. Hopefully it hasn't been broken in later | versions of Gnus. It should be the default. FWIW, I'm in agreement with Russ on this, and to <mumble> with what the GNKSA has to say about it. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 4:28 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 5:21 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 9:23 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-25 5:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> on Thu, 24 May 2001 > | (setq message-syntax-checks '((sender . disabled))) > | has worked great for years. Hopefully it hasn't been broken in later > | versions of Gnus. It should be the default. > FWIW, I'm in agreement with Russ on this, and to <mumble> with what the > GNKSA has to say about it. *blink blink* For some reason, I thought we were vehemently disagreeing. Cool! I love it when that happens. :) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 4:28 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 5:21 ` Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-25 9:23 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 20:00 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On 25 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > * Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| (setq message-syntax-checks '((sender . disabled))) > >| has worked great for years. Hopefully it hasn't been broken in >| later versions of Gnus. It should be the default. > > FWIW, I'm in agreement with Russ on this, and to <mumble> with what > the GNKSA has to say about it. Either you have changed your mind, or I fundamentally don't grok what you're saying. I thought you were saying that Gnus should create a Sender header (with whatever contents), but the above prevents Gnus from ever creating one. What's the story? kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 9:23 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 20:00 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 21:52 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw) * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Fri, 25 May 2001 | Either you have changed your mind, or I fundamentally don't grok what | you're saying. I thought you were saying that Gnus should create a | Sender header (with whatever contents), but the above prevents Gnus | from ever creating one. What's the story? Gnus should not automatically generate a Sender header. That is my personal opinion, which along with $5 will get you a small coffee at Starbucks. I have not been arguing that Gnus should generate Sender headers, I have been arguing how Gnus should generate the fields given the premise that Gnus do so. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 20:00 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 21:52 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-26 5:33 ` Stainless Steel Rat 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On Fri, 25 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > Gnus should not automatically generate a Sender header. That is my > personal opinion, which along with $5 will get you a small coffee at > Starbucks. I'd need a few hundred bucks to get to Starbucks, first :-) I see. So you think Gnus should not generate a Sender header. Amazing how long we talked without me realizing this. How about having Gnus check the message before sending, and if the user has manually entered a From header, have Gnus tell the user to add a Sender header, too? kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 21:52 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-26 5:33 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-26 22:24 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-26 5:33 UTC (permalink / raw) * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Fri, 25 May 2001 | I see. So you think Gnus should not generate a Sender header. Amazing | how long we talked without me realizing this. I think any MUA should be as conservative as it possibly can while being as accurate as possible. | How about having Gnus check the message before sending, and if the user | has manually entered a From header, have Gnus tell the user to add a | Sender header, too? Of course, if we have a hundred people asking how to turn off Sender now, Gnus goes and does that and we will have three hundred asking how to turn off this new behaviour. It is difficult to call that an improvement. :) -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 5:33 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-26 22:24 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-26 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On 26 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Fri, 25 May > 2001 > >| How about having Gnus check the message before sending, and if the >| user has manually entered a From header, have Gnus tell the user to >| add a Sender header, too? > > Of course, if we have a hundred people asking how to turn off Sender > now, Gnus goes and does that and we will have three hundred asking > how to turn off this new behaviour. It is difficult to call that an > improvement. :) He he. However, this depends on how you define `manually entered'. One possibility would be to say that a From header which comes from user-mail-address is _not_ manually entered. Only if the header is _really_ manually entered, should we ask. How many people do M-<, then type `From: SPC bla RET'? kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 3:08 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 4:28 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 11:46 ` Per Abrahamsen 2001-05-25 21:56 ` Jesper Harder 2001-05-25 16:21 ` Paul Jarc 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Per Abrahamsen @ 2001-05-25 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > (setq message-syntax-checks '((sender . disabled))) > > has worked great for years. Hopefully it hasn't been broken in later > versions of Gnus. It should be the default. I agree, except that it breaks cancels when using 'gnus-posting-styles'. Nonetheless, I'd actually prefer disabling sender, and let someone who cares about 'gnus-posting-styles' fix that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 11:46 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 2001-05-25 21:56 ` Jesper Harder 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Jesper Harder @ 2001-05-25 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw) abraham@dina.kvl.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes: > Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > > > (setq message-syntax-checks '((sender . disabled))) > > > > has worked great for years. Hopefully it hasn't been broken in later > > versions of Gnus. It should be the default. > > I agree, Me to. > except that it breaks cancels when using 'gnus-posting-styles'. > Nonetheless, I'd actually prefer disabling sender, and let someone who > cares about 'gnus-posting-styles' fix that. An easy way to fix it would be to use cancel locks instead of the heuristics used in message-cancel-news to determine if you're allowed to cancel. All you need is to replace the checking code in message-cancel-news with: (if (canlock-verify) (error "This article is not yours")) and add this to .gnus (add-hook 'message-header-hook 'canlock-insert-header) (setq canlock-password "hemmeligt") (require 'canlock) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 3:08 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 4:28 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 11:46 ` Per Abrahamsen @ 2001-05-25 16:21 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-26 6:45 ` Russ Allbery 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > (setq message-syntax-checks '((sender . disabled))) > > has worked great for years. I want to disable Sender for mail, but not for news. Can that be easily done? paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 16:21 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-26 6:45 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-26 22:22 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-27 21:45 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-26 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Paul Jarc <prj@po.cwru.edu> writes: > I want to disable Sender for mail, but not for news. Can that be easily > done? OOC, why do you want to keep it for news? The only earthly purpose that I can think of it serving is to provide spammers with another possibly valid e-mail address to use. It's not like anyone on Usenet *cares* about the actual account that you were using when you posted. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 6:45 ` Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-26 22:22 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-27 21:46 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 21:45 ` Paul Jarc 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-26 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding On 25 May 2001, Russ Allbery wrote: > OOC ? What does this expand do? kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 22:22 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-27 21:46 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > On 25 May 2001, Russ Allbery wrote: >> OOC > > ? What does this expand do? "Out of curiosity", I'm guessing. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 6:45 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-26 22:22 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-27 21:45 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 22:48 ` Russ Allbery 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes: > Paul Jarc <prj@po.cwru.edu> writes: >> I want to disable Sender for mail, but not for news. Can that be easily >> done? > > OOC, why do you want to keep it for news? I was going by my interpretation of 1036. Newer specs have convinced me that I don't need Sender for news either. > It's not like anyone on Usenet *cares* about the actual account that > you were using when you posted. Well, there isn't quite any equivalent for Received (Path isn't quite as informative), so it would indeed be removing information. When all is well, this wouldn't matter; when things break, extra information might help. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-27 21:45 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 22:48 ` Russ Allbery 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-27 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Paul Jarc <prj@po.cwru.edu> writes: > Well, there isn't quite any equivalent for Received (Path isn't quite as > informative), so it would indeed be removing information. When all is > well, this wouldn't matter; when things break, extra information might > help. I can't think of a form of breakage for a personal post (as opposed to a gateway or the like) where the information in Sender would be particularly useful. NNTP-Posting-Host, X-Trace, and the like, yes, but that's different. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 21:20 ` Stainless Steel Rat ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2001-05-24 23:18 ` Barry Fishman @ 2001-05-25 2:01 ` Bjørn Mork 3 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 2:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > But if login @ fqdn is not an address at all then something in the system > is not configured correctly. Where do you find this requirement? Blindly creating sender fields based on this assumption violates RFC2822. If present, the sender field must contain a single mailbox. "login @ fqdn" does not qualify in many cases, and there is nothing requiring it should (even if there were: Would it justify violating RFC2822?) 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. I do see that this text can be interpreted in different ways, but let's interpret it in a way that makes sense. When are the author and transmitter identical? Most of us write mail wearing different hats and using different machines to transmit it, maybe even different logins on the same machine. But the important difference is always which hat we are wearing. In my opionion, the author and transmitter are always identical when they represent the same person. If I write a message with the bmork@dod.no hat on, then that's the hat I am using when transmitting it too. Where I am transmitting it from doesn't change this. With this interpretation, including a sender field would be illegal in all cases where a single author transmits his own mail. A sender field should only be added when transmitting mail on behalf of others, or when the mail has multiple authors. Bjørn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 20:32 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 20:48 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 22:53 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 1:38 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On Thu, 24 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > The correct question is, what breaks the Sender field does not > canonically identify the sender? The answer is, if the Sender field > does not contain the canonical mailbox of the sender and there is a > problem, perhaps with that machine, I may be unable to contact the > sender. If the Sender field contains the FQDN of the host, and the machine is turned off, you're screwed. So maybe it is better to give a domain part in the address which identifies a host which is sure to be on? Maybe this is the case in my situation? How can you know? How can Gnus know? Why do you want to forbid me from putting there an address which I know to work better than user@FQDN? > You see, Sender is for human consumption only. It exists at least > partially so that humans, like me, can track down problems at their > source. If the Sender field does not include the FQDN of the > sending host it makes finding and solving problems that much more > difficult. Reall? What is the FQDN needed for? The address should specify a mailbox, and knowing about host names is not necessary for specifying mailboxes. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 22:53 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 1:38 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 14:56 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw) * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May 2001 | If the Sender field contains the FQDN of the host, and the machine is | turned off, you're screwed. *sigh* Not if your MX records are set up correctly. | So maybe it is better to give a domain part in the address which | identifies a host which is sure to be on? Maybe this is the case in my | situation? How can you know? How can Gnus know? | Why do you want to forbid me from putting there an address which I | know to work better than user@FQDN? Because right now, for example, ratinox@newsguy.com could be who I am when I write this message, but it is not who I am when I send it. It would be incorrect for me to put ratinox@newsguy.com in the Sender header no matter how much "better" (read convenient) it is. | Reall? What is the FQDN needed for? The address should specify a | mailbox, and knowing about host names is not necessary for specifying | mailboxes. The domain part of an RFC 2822 mailbox must be a fully qualified domain name. If you are not doing RFC 2822 mail then you can do whatever you want, but don't expect it to work correctly anywhere else. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 1:38 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 14:56 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 20:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| If the Sender field contains the FQDN of the host, and the machine is >| turned off, you're screwed. > > *sigh* > Not if your MX records are set up correctly. Where do the RFCs support your notion of correctness WRT MX records? >| Why do you want to forbid me from putting there an address which I >| know to work better than user@FQDN? > > Because right now, for example, ratinox@newsguy.com could be who I am when > I write this message, but it is not who I am when I send it. You are always the same person, and all your mailboxes identify you equally well all the time. The fact that you're using only one of them at any given moment changes nothing. > The domain part of an RFC 2822 mailbox must be a fully qualified domain > name. I see no such requirement. Using an unqualified name like "prj@multivac" will indeed break things, of course. But you're also inventing the requirement for a *particular* FQDN - the local one. This requirement is not in RFC 2822. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 14:56 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 20:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 20:39 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw) * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Fri, 25 May 2001 | Where do the RFCs support your notion of correctness WRT MX records? MX records make it possible to deliver mail that would otherwise bounce off of a host that is not configured to accept mail. The rest should be as obvious as adding 2 and 2. [...] | You are always the same person, and all your mailboxes identify you | equally well all the time. The fact that you're using only one of | them at any given moment changes nothing. You are incorrect. | I see no such requirement. Using an unqualified name like | "prj@multivac" will indeed break things, of course. But you're also | inventing the requirement for a *particular* FQDN - the local one. | This requirement is not in RFC 2822. You are again incorrect. Read the definitions again. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 20:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 20:39 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 22:04 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-26 5:26 ` Stainless Steel Rat 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Fri, 25 May 2001 >| Where do the RFCs support your notion of correctness WRT MX records? > > MX records make it possible to deliver mail that would otherwise bounce off > of a host that is not configured to accept mail. Right (although it also requires help from the server named in the MX record - even if that server accepts mail, it doesn't necessarily accept mail addressed to arbitrary domains). But who says I want to receive such mail anyway? If all the addresses I use have "@domain.com", then I can expect that no one will send mail addressed to blah.domain.com, so I have no need to bother with extra MX records. >| You are always the same person, and all your mailboxes identify you >| equally well all the time. The fact that you're using only one of >| them at any given moment changes nothing. > > You are incorrect. Gee, thanks for explaining. I see nothing in 2822 to suggest that Sender should indicate the host where a message originated. If you do, please point it out. >| I see no such requirement. Using an unqualified name like >| "prj@multivac" will indeed break things, of course. But you're also >| inventing the requirement for a *particular* FQDN - the local one. >| This requirement is not in RFC 2822. > > You are again incorrect. Read the definitions again. The string "prj@multivac" is generated by the grammar for "mailbox". If the requirement for a FQDN is somewhere else, I missed it. And actually, the grammar *prohibits* an absolute domain name as defined by RFC 1034. Or did you mean something other than "absolute" by: > The domain part of an RFC 2822 mailbox must be a fully qualified domain > name. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 20:39 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 22:04 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 22:15 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-26 5:26 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw) On 25 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote: > I see nothing in 2822 to suggest that Sender should indicate the > host where a message originated. If you do, please point it out. My idea of Rat's reasoning: Sender should be canonical, canonical means login@fully.qualified.host.name. Qed. (Maybe there's an additional step `Sender should be verified, verified means canonical' in the beginning.) Right, Rat? ;-) I doubt that he will quote chapter and verse to show that verified means canonical, or that Sender should be canonical. That just follows from common sense. Or 30 years of practice. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 22:04 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 22:15 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 22:34 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > On 25 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote: >> I see nothing in 2822 to suggest that Sender should indicate the >> host where a message originated. If you do, please point it out. > > My idea of Rat's reasoning: Sender should be canonical, canonical > means login@fully.qualified.host.name. Qed. None of that is in the RFC, though, and violating it won't cause any problems in practice. Also note the difference between an address verified by software and one constructed by software. (I find this use of "canonical" rather odd, but we can ignore that.) > I doubt that he will quote chapter and verse Me, too. Which suggests that either there is indeed no such requirement, or that he doesn't care enough about Gnus getting it right to show us where it is. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 22:15 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 22:34 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 22:47 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw) On 25 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote: > Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > >> I doubt that he will quote chapter and verse > > Me, too. If, however, the whole thing comes from 30 years of practice, it's not possible to quote chapter and verse. Hm. Maybe we just don't understand. (I think I do understand, but I'm biased...) kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 22:34 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 22:47 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > If, however, the whole thing comes from 30 years of practice, it's not > possible to quote chapter and verse. But in that case, you'd expect him to say that, instead of things like: > Frobbing [Sender] directly would be a violation of the requirements of > RFCs 2822 and 1034. and: > The canonical mailbox is required by RFC 2822. Kai again: > Hm. Maybe we just don't understand. (I think I do understand, but > I'm biased...) Aren't we all? paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 20:39 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 22:04 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-26 5:26 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-27 22:15 ` Paul Jarc 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-26 5:26 UTC (permalink / raw) * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Fri, 25 May 2001 | Right (although it also requires help from the server named in the MX | record - even if that server accepts mail, it doesn't necessarily | accept mail addressed to arbitrary domains). But the server mail.foo.com does not accept mail for arbitrary domains, it accepts mail for foo.com and those domains it controls. | But who says I want to receive such mail anyway? If all the addresses I | use have "@domain.com", then I can expect that no one will send mail | addressed to blah.domain.com, so I have no need to bother with extra MX | records. Because that is not how the real world works, except in dotcomville where the namespace is flat. Case in point, I have a spam trap mailbox on peorth's primary MX that does not exist on her secondary MX. If you try to send mail to ratspahn@gweep.net, it will bounce, but mail to ratspahn@rei.nerv.gweep.net will be delivered. | Gee, thanks for explaining. | I see nothing in 2822 to suggest that Sender should indicate the host | where a message originated. If you do, please point it out. It doesn't, because a message's sender has absolutely nothing to do with where the message originated. | The string "prj@multivac" is generated by the grammar for "mailbox". It is not an RFC 2822 mailbox. It may be a local mailbox to you, but we are not talking about local mail, we are talking about Internet mail. | If the requirement for a FQDN is somewhere else, I missed it. You missed it. From RFC 2822 section 3.4.1: "In the domain-literal form, the domain is interpreted as the literal Internet address of the particular host." A "literal Internet address" of a host is its local host name, a dot, and the local domain name. A mailbox is type addr-spec. addr-spec is `local-part "@" domain'. domain is `dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domain'. Colloquially, a mailbox is local-part@fqdn (less the root dot). -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-26 5:26 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-27 22:15 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 23:02 ` Stainless Steel Rat 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Fri, 25 May 2001 >| Right (although it also requires help from the server named in the MX >| record - even if that server accepts mail, it doesn't necessarily >| accept mail addressed to arbitrary domains). > > But the server mail.foo.com does not accept mail for arbitrary domains, it > accepts mail for foo.com and those domains it controls. 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. >| But who says I want to receive such mail anyway? If all the addresses I >| use have "@domain.com", then I can expect that no one will send mail >| addressed to blah.domain.com, so I have no need to bother with extra MX >| records. > > Because that is not how the real world works, except in dotcomville where > the namespace is flat. And RFC 2822 applies to dotcomville just as everywhere else. I'm not saying that accepting mail for subdomains is a bad or uncommon practice. I'm just saying it's not required by any RFC, and it isn't necessary in all situations. >| I see nothing in 2822 to suggest that Sender should indicate the host >| where a message originated. If you do, please point it out. > > It doesn't, because a message's sender has absolutely nothing to do with > where the message originated. 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. >| The string "prj@multivac" is generated by the grammar for "mailbox". > > It is not an RFC 2822 mailbox. I would agree that RFC probably doesn't intend to include such strings as mailboxes, but I'm not certain it accomplishes that goal. The grammar alone certainly isn't enough to do it. >| If the requirement for a FQDN is somewhere else, I missed it. > > You missed it. From RFC 2822 section 3.4.1: > > "In the domain-literal form, the domain is interpreted as the literal > Internet address of the particular host." > > A "literal Internet address" of a host is its local host name, a dot, and > the local domain name. 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. > A mailbox is type addr-spec. addr-spec is `local-part "@" domain'. > domain is `dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domain'. And dot-atom matches "foo". In order to require an internal dot via the grammar, this rule: dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext) would have to be replaced with: dot-atom-text = 1*atext 1*("." 1*atext) > Colloquially, a mailbox is local-part@fqdn (less the root dot). Colloquially, yes. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-27 22:15 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 23:02 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-27 23:20 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-27 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw) * 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. If it does not, and there is no server that accepts mail for bar.foo.com, then the whole site is configured badly. [...] | 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. It is up to the site's mail gateway to masqerade what needs to be masqeraded. [...] | 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. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-27 23:02 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-27 23:20 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-27 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 19:34 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 19:52 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 20:30 ` Graham Murray 2001-05-24 21:13 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Graham Murray @ 2001-05-24 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > Yes, that is exactly what I think. A records are required for all machines > on the Internet that have anything to do with mail, and MX records should > exist for all such hosts. Proper mail handling depends on that being the > case. If your host has neither A nor MX records then it is not configured > correctly. Trying to make Gnus work around that does not fix the problem. I think that there are at least 2 situations in which that does not apply. 1) Dial-up hosts using dynamic IP. In this situation, the user is often given a mailbox of user@isp.com. There are MX records for isp.com which points at the ISP's mail server(s). However there is no (fixed) A record for the customer's system, and its name is dynamically assigned when the system connects to the ISP. Therefore, it is not possible to configure the system with its FQDN. 2) Hosts on an internal LAN (probably using RFC 1918 addresses) behind a firewall. All users on the LAN are allocated mailboxes in the form of user@x.com. Internally the hosts on the LAN are configured as a.x.com, b.x.com etc. The internal host names should never be visible to the Internet "at large". Currently if user@a.x.com sends mail with a from address of user1@x.com (the externally visible mailbox), gnus will set the Sender to user@a.x.com - which address should be visible outside of x.com's internal network. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 20:30 ` Graham Murray @ 2001-05-24 21:13 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 21:26 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 23:02 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw) * Graham Murray <graham@barnowl.demon.co.uk> on Thu, 24 May 2001 | 1) Dial-up hosts using dynamic IP. In this situation, the user is often | given a mailbox of user@isp.com. [snip] There must be an A record (and FQDN) for the IP address. A properly configured dialup server will provide the FQDN associated with the IP address, and a properly configured dialup host will set its name to that FQDN for the duration of its connection. Gnus generates Sender fields using that FQDN (or it should). The MX record associated with the A record will make it a deliverable mailbox. Correct configuration elminates the perceived need to coerce Gnus into doing things that are less than Kosher. | 2) Hosts on an internal LAN (probably using RFC 1918 addresses) behind a | firewall. [snip] Internally those fields should be as canonical as possible. It is the responsiblity of the mail gateway to properly masqerade header fields. A mail gateway that fails to do this is not configured correctly. Gnus should not be encouraged to work around such misbehaviour. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 21:13 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 21:26 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 1:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 23:02 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * Graham Murray <graham@barnowl.demon.co.uk> on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| 1) Dial-up hosts using dynamic IP. In this situation, the user is often >| given a mailbox of user@isp.com. [snip] > > There must be an A record (and FQDN) for the IP address. A properly > configured dialup server will provide the FQDN associated with the IP > address, and a properly configured dialup host will set its name to that > FQDN for the duration of its connection. Gnus generates Sender > fields using that FQDN (or it should). But I though you wanted Sender to have the user's canonical address. In this case, the user's cacnonical address very clearly does not include the system's current FQDN. > The MX record associated with the A record will make it a > deliverable mailbox. You don't seem to understand DNS. The dialup's name has an A record, and may (but need not) have an MX record. The A record certainly does not have an MX record associated with it. >| 2) Hosts on an internal LAN (probably using RFC 1918 addresses) behind a >| firewall. [snip] > > Internally those fields should be as canonical as possible. It is the > responsiblity of the mail gateway to properly masqerade header fields. Where does RFC 2822 make that requirement? paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 21:26 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 1:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 2:27 ` Bjørn Mork ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 1:12 UTC (permalink / raw) * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 | But I though you wanted Sender to have the user's canonical address. | In this case, the user's cacnonical address very clearly does not | include the system's current FQDN. You are assuming that sender == originator. Don't do that. | You don't seem to understand DNS. The dialup's name has an A record, | and may (but need not) have an MX record. The A record certainly does | not have an MX record associated with it. It should have an MX record associated with it. All A records should have associated MX records. | > Internally those fields should be as canonical as possible. It is the | > responsiblity of the mail gateway to properly masqerade header fields. | Where does RFC 2822 make that requirement? Definition of "mailbox". -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 1:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 2:27 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-25 4:10 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 3:10 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 15:55 ` Paul Jarc 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 2:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > It should have an MX record associated with it. All A records should have > associated MX records. No. All mail names should have MX records. You are assuming that all names with an A record are mail hosts. That's not a requirement, and certainly not true. RFC 1912 recommends adding MX records even for hosts which are not supposed to send or receive mail, but I don't think that justifies ignoring those who don't. > | > Internally those fields should be as canonical as possible. It is the > | > responsiblity of the mail gateway to properly masqerade header fields. > | Where does RFC 2822 make that requirement? > > Definition of "mailbox". Yeah right. You're reading standards like Microsoft. Bjørn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 2:27 ` Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 4:10 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 9:37 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 4:10 UTC (permalink / raw) * "Bjørn Mork" <bmork@dod.no> on Thu, 24 May 2001 | RFC 1912 recommends adding MX records even for hosts which are not | supposed to send or receive mail, but I don't think that justifies | ignoring those who don't. In what way is this different from "all A records should have associated MX records"? -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 4:10 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 9:37 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 19:54 ` Stainless Steel Rat 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On 25 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > * "Bjørn Mork" <bmork@dod.no> on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| RFC 1912 recommends adding MX records even for hosts which are not >| supposed to send or receive mail, but I don't think that justifies >| ignoring those who don't. > > In what way is this different from "all A records should have > associated MX records"? It's the difference between a recommendation and a requirement. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 9:37 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 19:54 ` Stainless Steel Rat 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw) * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Fri, 25 May 2001 | It's the difference between a recommendation and a requirement. You should look up the definitions of "should" and "must" sometime. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 1:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 2:27 ` Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 3:10 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 4:11 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 15:55 ` Paul Jarc 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-25 3:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > It should have an MX record associated with it. All A records should > have associated MX records. There's nothing in any RFC that says that. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 3:10 ` Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-25 4:11 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 5:20 ` Russ Allbery 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 4:11 UTC (permalink / raw) * Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> on Thu, 24 May 2001 | > It should have an MX record associated with it. All A records should | > have associated MX records. | There's nothing in any RFC that says that. RFC 1912 does. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 4:11 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 5:20 ` Russ Allbery 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-25 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> on Thu, 24 May 2001 > | > It should have an MX record associated with it. All A records should > | > have associated MX records. > | There's nothing in any RFC that says that. > RFC 1912 does. That depends on what you mean by should. RFC 1912 definitely doesn't say SHOULD. It says that it's a good idea (and goes on to explain that it thinks it's a good idea for incredibly minor and unimportant performance reasons, so personally I feel free to disagree with it -- the added minor complexity is more of a drawback to me than the incredibly minor performance difference is a win). In practice, there's no important reason for a host that receives e-mail for itself and that doesn't have a backup mail server to have an MX record. An A record is entirely sufficient. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 1:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 2:27 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-25 3:10 ` Russ Allbery @ 2001-05-25 15:55 ` Paul Jarc 2 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes: >|> A properly configured dialup server will provide the FQDN >|> associated with the IP address, and a properly configured dialup >|> host will set its name to that FQDN for the duration of its >|> connection. Gnus generates Sender fields using that FQDN (or it >|> should). >| >| But I though you wanted Sender to have the user's canonical address. >| In this case, the user's cacnonical address very clearly does not >| include the system's current FQDN. > > You are assuming that sender == originator. Don't do that. I am not assuming that sender==author, if that's what you mean. A user identified by login@dialup.isp.com does not have login@dialup.isp.com as their primary email address, nor is that necessarily a valid address at all, thus it should not be used for Sender. >| > It is the responsiblity of the mail gateway to properly masqerade >| > header fields. >| Where does RFC 2822 make that requirement? > > Definition of "mailbox". I don't see it. Chapter and verse, please. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 21:13 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 21:26 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 23:02 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 1:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On Thu, 24 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > * Graham Murray <graham@barnowl.demon.co.uk> on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| 1) Dial-up hosts using dynamic IP. In this situation, the user is >| often given a mailbox of user@isp.com. [snip] > > There must be an A record (and FQDN) for the IP address. A properly > configured dialup server will provide the FQDN associated with the > IP address, Some people have to work with a dialup server which is not properly configured. I want to make it easy for Gnus users to use such dialup servers. You want to make it hard for Gnus users to use them. These guys' lives are so miserable already, why make it harder? kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 23:02 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 1:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 9:35 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 1:12 UTC (permalink / raw) * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May 2001 | These guys' lives are so miserable already, why make it harder? Then set "system-name" to something useful and be done with it. That is about as easy as it gets. -- Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 1:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 9:35 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On 24 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May > 2001 >| These guys' lives are so miserable already, why make it harder? > > Then set "system-name" to something useful and be done with it. > That is about as easy as it gets. It's not so easy, for system-name is used for two different things: (a) for the mail address, and (b) for the Message-ID header. The requirements for these two are different. It's not always possible to have one value fulfill both requirements. Now you can claim that a new variable should be introduced for the Message-ID header, and I claim that a different variable should be used for the mail address. The end result is the same. Except that the variable for the mail address already exists -- mail-host-address could be used. In Germany, there are a number of dialup providers which provide call-by-call accounting. You call them, they give you an IP address, you can do IP. These providers do not provide a mailbox for the people dialing them. However, there are other freemail providers which one can use. Your requirements would prevent me from using their convenient and cheap service. I think it is not the job of a standard to prevent me from using a cheap service. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 18:35 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 19:00 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 22:40 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 14:44 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 22:49 ` Kai Großjohann 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On Thu, 24 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > Before this gets too long, here is a hint: system-name. Think about > it for a moment. system-name helps to find an IP address, but it does not (particularly) help with sending mail. > * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) on Thu, 24 May > 2001 >| I dare say that people don't complain because people can frob their >| From header via user-mail-address. They cannot, however, frob >| their Sender header via user-mail-address. > > And they should not. Frobbing it directly would be a violation of > the requirements of RFCs 2822 and 1034. Please quote chapter and verse. > [...] >| - Generate a Sender header using user-login-name, followed by >| "@", followed by system-name. > > Which is as canonical as a program can get. Sender is supposed to > be canonical. By "canonical" I mean "an attempt has been made to > ensure that the mailbox is valid". For a correctly configured > system, and that includes the mail hubs and what-not, not just the > local machine, `login at FQDN' is canonical. > > I apparantly misunderstood something, because using > user-mail-address for generating Sender would break that. Therefore > it should not be done. RFC 2822 has the following to say about the From and Sender headers. /---- | The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the | message. The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, | that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible for | the writing of the message. The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox | of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message. \---- Note that this talks about both headers containing mailbox specifications. It does not at all suggest that the mailbox specifications in the Sender header should in any way differ from the mailbox specifications in the From header. It does not say that the part after `@' should be a FQDN for the From header mailbox specs, nor does it say this for the Sender header mailbox specs. I don't see why you require the part after `@' to be a FQDN for the Sender header, but not for the From header. And: I don't see why the part before the `@' should be the login name of the user. I don't see this for the From header, and I don't see this for the Sender header. Can you point out where the RFC makes such a distinction between the >From and the Sender headers? > [...] >| I don't know what does RFC 2822 say. I only know about RFC 822. >| The local RFC server doesn't seem to know about this RFC. Can you >| help out? > > RFCs 2821 and 2822 obsoleted RFCs 821 and 822 about a month ago. > They clarify a lot of things, not the least of which is Sender, both > by standard and defacto use. Sadly, the examples are not quite clear. However, the Message-ID headers mention local.machine.example as an `after-@' part. Since the `after-@' part in a Message-ID should be a FQDN, I conclude that local.machine.example is intended to be a FQDN. The examples for the Sender header use machine.example, which is NOT a FQDN. How can you require FQDN if even the examples in the RFC don't have it? > [...] >| I'm with you so far. I presume that you have set user-mail-address >| to "ratinox@peorth.gweep.net". Then my proposal does what you >| want. > > No, I don't. I have my system configured correctly. It knows > itself as peorth.gweep.net, so Emacs knows it as peorth.gweep.net, > so Gnus knows it as peorth.gweep.net, and nothing needs to be > kludged. Well, if you have configured system-name to be correct for your From address, then you have the special case where the existing Gnus algorithm and my proposed algorithm return the same result. But this special case is not true for all people. > You seem to believe that because only one person is involved in > originating a message and submitting it that the one person has only > one identity. I don't think that. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 22:40 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 14:44 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > Since the `after-@' part in a Message-ID should be a FQDN, I > conclude that local.machine.example is intended to be a FQDN. > > The examples for the Sender header use machine.example, which is NOT a > FQDN. >From a strict DNS point of view, both of those names are not FQ, but both would be if you added a "." at the end. ("gnus.org." is a FQDN; this has nothing to do with whether it has an address.) More relevant to the current discussion, though, is that there is no suggestion that Sender should include the *local* FQDN. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 18:35 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 19:00 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 22:40 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 22:49 ` Kai Großjohann 2 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-24 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: (ding) On Thu, 24 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > Which is as canonical as a program can get. Sender is supposed to > be canonical. By "canonical" I mean "an attempt has been made to > ensure that the mailbox is valid". The word canonical occurs exactly once in RFC 2822. This occurrence is not in the context you are talking about. The RFC does not appear to distinguish between mailbox specifications in the Sender header and in the From header, w.r.t. validity. Hence, if you require FQDN in the Sender header because of validity, then you also require FQDN in the From header because of validity. It is very easy to show that there are thousands of people where the FQDN does not lead to a very valid mailbox spec. Hence, the FQDN requirement is not useful in practice. And it is not present in the RFC 2822, as far as I can see! Hm. Now I looked in RFC 2821, and there I can't see the FQDN requirement, either. So where do you get it from? kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 13:11 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-24 15:59 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-24 20:18 ` Christoph Conrad 2001-05-24 20:29 ` Paul Jarc 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Christoph Conrad @ 2001-05-24 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding Hello Kai, > No. As you can see in this message, Gnus automatically adds a > Sender header. I have changed the variable user-mail-address. I C-u g this article, no sender header... Best regards, cu, -cc- -- => GNU Emacs Webring @ <http://www.gnusoftware.com/WebRing/> <= Look Ma, this man can twist his fingers as if they were made of rubber, isn't that amazing? -- Not really, he's been using emacs for years...! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 20:18 ` Christoph Conrad @ 2001-05-24 20:29 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 8:17 ` Christoph Conrad 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-24 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Christoph Conrad <christoph.conrad@gmx.de> writes: > > No. As you can see in this message, Gnus automatically adds a > > Sender header. I have changed the variable user-mail-address. > > I C-u g this article, no sender header... I see: Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu But that's obviously not Gnus's doing. Sending myself a message, I see: Sender: prj@multivac.cwru.edu To: prj@multivac.cwru.edu Subject: test From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-24 20:29 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 8:17 ` Christoph Conrad 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Christoph Conrad @ 2001-05-25 8:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Hello Paul, you wrote: > I see: Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu But that's obviously not > Gnus's doing. Em, i am surprised, really. I had a look in the original downloaded article on the disk, ~/News/agent/nntp/quimby.gnus.org/gnus/ding/32560 I looked in it with Emacs and with less, no "Sender:" in header. I am using gnus agent. It could be only Gnus who filtered it out when downloading. Oort Gnus v0.04 GNU Emacs 21.0.103.1 (i586-pc-linux-gnu, X toolkit, Xaw3d scroll bars) of 2001-05-16 on mutzel Mhmmm, what's going on here? Best regards, cu, -cc- -- => GNU Emacs Webring @ <http://www.gnusoftware.com/WebRing/> <= Look Ma, this man can twist his fingers as if they were made of rubber, isn't that amazing? -- Not really, he's been using emacs for years...! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-23 16:27 Sender header? Kai Großjohann 2001-05-23 16:34 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-23 18:14 ` Stainless Steel Rat @ 2001-05-25 1:45 ` Karl Kleinpaste 2001-05-25 9:19 ` Kai Großjohann 2 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Karl Kleinpaste @ 2001-05-25 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > What do you think? (add-to-list 'message-syntax-checks '(sender . disabled)) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 1:45 ` Karl Kleinpaste @ 2001-05-25 9:19 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 11:50 ` Karl Kleinpaste 2001-05-25 15:35 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding On 24 May 2001, Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: >> What do you think? > > (add-to-list 'message-syntax-checks '(sender . disabled)) This is what I currently use. However, it does not automatically add a Sender header if I have manually modified the From header. If somebody else uses my Gnus for sending a message, and manually frobs the From header, I want Gnus to insert a Sender header with user-mail-address in it. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 9:19 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 11:50 ` Karl Kleinpaste 2001-05-25 15:31 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 21:21 ` Christoph Conrad 2001-05-25 15:35 ` Paul Jarc 1 sibling, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Karl Kleinpaste @ 2001-05-25 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > This is what I currently use. However, it does not automatically add > a Sender header if I have manually modified the From header. That was merely my (too subtle?) expression of an attitude about the actual, real-life, practical utility of Sender. I crawled through my archives for a little while last night, looking for when I last generated Sender with any regularity. It seems to have been early 1995 or so. And evidently I've generated on the order of 25,000 messages with Gnus since that time. Never once in 6 full years of busy net.activity have I had actual trouble befall me from having left Sender out. Thus, I conclude that, RFCs be damned regardless of their conflicting instructions, the practical utility of Sender is on a par with the practical utility of Resent-From, i.e., none at all. To and Cc have practical utility. Subject and Xref have practical utility. Keywords has enough practical utility to me personally that I auto-generate it where it doesn't exist. But Sender doesn't do anything for anybody, as a practical matter. We have argued over the semantics of Sender for years, and evidently even now have never gotten it quite right (else the argument wouldn't have resumed now), and yet I've found that just *not generating it* is the simplest practical solution with no evident negative effects. You folks go ahead and argue once again over Sender. I'll continue to keep Sender disabled. And I won't have any problems, regardless of the conclusions reached by, as well as the code modifications that result from, the resumption of the Sender argument. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 11:50 ` Karl Kleinpaste @ 2001-05-25 15:31 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 21:21 ` Christoph Conrad 1 sibling, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Karl Kleinpaste <karl@charcoal.com> writes: > We have argued over the semantics of Sender for years, and evidently > even now have never gotten it quite right (else the argument > wouldn't have resumed now), Gnus's current behavior is correct for news. But for mail, Sender is a completely different entity which just happens to have the same name. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 11:50 ` Karl Kleinpaste 2001-05-25 15:31 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 21:21 ` Christoph Conrad 1 sibling, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Christoph Conrad @ 2001-05-25 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding > instructions, the practical utility of Sender is on a par with I always bother in my company when official statements from the CEO are mailed to all from the secretary with their "From:". It would be nice if the mails would come from the CEO, and the sender would be the secretary (in case of technical problems, e.g. unreadable parts of the message), as the standard explains this. I think that's quite useful. > the practical utility of Resent-From, i.e., none at all. I also think this is quite useful. Sometimes i re-send mail to other people, and they can see in the header that it is not originally from me. Often i re-send mail from the company to home or vice versa. I like the re-sent header. Best regards, cu, -cc- -- => GNU Emacs Webring @ <http://www.gnusoftware.com/WebRing/> <= Look Ma, this man can twist his fingers as if they were made of rubber, isn't that amazing? -- Not really, he's been using emacs for years...! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 9:19 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 11:50 ` Karl Kleinpaste @ 2001-05-25 15:35 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 16:12 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > If somebody else uses my Gnus for sending a message, and manually > frobs the From header, I want Gnus to insert a Sender header with > user-mail-address in it. Gnus can't distinguish between this case and the case where you manually enter a different From address that still refers to you; the case could be made that Gnus should never add Sender automatically for mail messages (except when there are multiple From addresses - in that case, Gnus should definitely add Sender: user-mail-address). But it wouldn't do any harm to add Sender in these ambiguous cases as well. In all cases, if Sender is added automatically, its contents should be user-mail-address, but this applies only for mail, not news. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 15:35 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 16:12 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 16:24 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw) On 25 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote: > In all cases, if Sender is added automatically, its contents should > be user-mail-address, That's what I've been saying all along... > but this applies only for mail, not news. ... except that I didn't know about that distinction. What's the story for news? kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 16:12 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 16:24 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 16:49 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > What's the story for news? According to RFC 1036, Sender is for news more or less what Rat says it should be for mail - it's used for tracking down where a message entered the network. So user-login-name@system-name is the right thing in that case. Sender for mail is something completely different, and just happens to have the same name. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 16:24 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 16:49 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 17:39 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw) On 25 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote: > According to RFC 1036, Sender is for news more or less what Rat says > it should be for mail - it's used for tracking down where a message > entered the network. So user-login-name@system-name is the right > thing in that case. Sender for mail is something completely > different, and just happens to have the same name. RFC 1036 has this example: /---- | For example, if John Smith is visiting CCA and wishes to post a | message to the network, using friend Sarah Jones' account, the | message might read: | | From: smith@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John Smith) | Sender: jones@cca.COM (Sarah Jones) \---- cca.COM doesn't look like the system name of any host. So the requirement for the rhs to be the system name would contradict this example. Also, I'm having difficulty finding support in RFC 1036 for Sender addresses to be any different than other mail addresses (in particular, the mail addresses in the From header). There is a word `verified' in there, but the RFC does not say what it means. Also, the intent of the whole thing seems to be that it is possible to send mail to the address in the Sender header -- and if `user@host.dom.ain' is not the right place to send email for mails, then it's not the right place to send emails for news, either. Or am I mistaken? Maybe son or grandson have better information, but I keep forgetting where to find them. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 16:49 ` Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 17:39 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 18:01 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-25 18:01 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 2 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > On 25 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote: >> According to RFC 1036, Sender is for news more or less what Rat says >> it should be for mail - it's used for tracking down where a message >> entered the network. > > RFC 1036 has this example: Yes, but it also has this one: # If a gateway program enters a mail message into the network at host # unix.SRI.COM, the lines might read: # # From: John.Doe@A.CS.CMU.EDU # Sender: network@unix.SRI.COM I don't think it's suggesting that network@unix.sri.com issupposed to be a valid email address. > cca.COM doesn't look like the system name of any host. It looks like it probably isn't, but it could be. A host could even have just "z." as its FQDN, given the appropriate DNS records. > So the requirement for the rhs to be the system name would > contradict this example. I think user-login-name@system-name would work best for news, but nothing specific is required. I think user-mail-address would work too, though not as well, based on the explanatory text in 2.2.2. It's all pretty vague. > Also, the intent of the whole thing seems to be that it is possible > to send mail to the address in the Sender header I don't see that. > Maybe son or grandson have better information, but I keep forgetting > where to find them. I don't think I've ever seen them, so my information may be well out of date. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 17:39 ` Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 18:01 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-25 18:23 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 18:01 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 1 reply; 121+ messages in thread From: Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes: > Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > > On 25 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote: > > > >> According to RFC 1036, Sender is for news more or less what Rat says > >> it should be for mail - it's used for tracking down where a message > >> entered the network. > > > > RFC 1036 has this example: > > Yes, but it also has this one: > # If a gateway program enters a mail message into the network at host > # unix.SRI.COM, the lines might read: > # > # From: John.Doe@A.CS.CMU.EDU > # Sender: network@unix.SRI.COM > > I don't think it's suggesting that network@unix.sri.com issupposed to > be a valid email address. RFC 1036 is confusing and unclear at best. It's better to look forward and see what's proposed in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-04.txt : A "sender" is the person or software (usually, but not always, the same as the poster) responsible for the operation of the posting agent or, which amounts to the same thing, for passing the article to the injecting agent. The sender is analogous to [MESSFOR]'s sender. [..] 6.2. Sender The Sender header specifies the mailbox of the entity which actually sent this article, if that entity is different from that given in the From header or if more than one address appears in the From header. This header SHOULD NOT appear in an article unless the sender is different from the author. This header is appropriate for use by automatic article posters. The content syntax makes use of syntax defined in [MESSFOR]. Sender-content = mailbox ([MESSFOR] was P. Resnick, "Internet Message Format Standard", draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-07.txt, March 1998, which is now published as RFC 2822) I.e. they propose changing the definition of the sender field in news to mean the same as in mail. Would make things easier IMHO. Bjørn ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 18:01 ` Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 18:23 ` Paul Jarc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-05-25 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) "Bjørn Mork" <bmork@dod.no> writes: > 6.2. Sender > > The Sender header specifies the mailbox of the entity which actually > sent this article, if that entity is different from that given in the > From header or if more than one address appears in the From header. > This header SHOULD NOT appear in an article unless the sender is > different from the author. This header is appropriate for use by > automatic article posters. The content syntax makes use of syntax > defined in [MESSFOR]. ... > I.e. they propose changing the definition of the sender field in news > to mean the same as in mail. Would make things easier IMHO. Yeah, that makes sense. One wonders about an automatic poster, though - an email address used to designate it would probably just forward to the person ultimately responsible for its postings anyway. paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
* Re: Sender header? 2001-05-25 17:39 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 18:01 ` Bjørn Mork @ 2001-05-25 18:01 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 0 replies; 121+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 2001-05-25 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) On 25 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote: > I think user-login-name@system-name would work best for news, but > nothing specific is required. I think user-mail-address would work > too, though not as well, based on the explanatory text in 2.2.2. > It's all pretty vague. Right. Hm. Son has this: NOTE: The intent is that the Sender header have a fairly high probability of identifying the person who really posted the article. The ability to specify a From header naming someone other than the poster is useful but can be abused. It also talks about verifying the address, but given that login-name@system-name may not be the right address. Son of RFC 1036 _very_ clearly says, however, that the contents of the Sender header should be a valid mailing address. So, I'm left with the feeling that Son of RFC 1036 and RFC 2822 specify pretty much the same thing about the Sender header. However, IANAL. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 121+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-06-02 21:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 121+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-05-23 16:27 Sender header? Kai Großjohann 2001-05-23 16:34 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 13:17 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-23 18:14 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 13:11 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-24 15:59 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 16:31 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-24 18:35 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 19:00 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 19:34 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 19:52 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 20:32 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 20:48 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 21:20 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 21:31 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 1:15 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 15:26 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 22:59 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 1:23 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 2:38 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-25 4:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 9:30 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 9:28 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 20:08 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 20:30 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 22:00 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-26 5:09 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-27 22:34 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 23:14 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-27 23:31 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 21:49 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-26 5:29 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-26 22:26 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-24 23:18 ` Barry Fishman 2001-05-25 1:30 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 16:06 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 2:10 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 4:24 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 5:05 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 16:13 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 16:17 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 17:50 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 18:16 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 19:45 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-25 21:59 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 21:55 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 23:40 ` Harry Putnam [not found] ` <87y9rknm6e.fsf@bandersnatch.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me> 2001-05-26 16:05 ` Harry Putnam 2001-06-02 21:44 ` Amos Gouaux 2001-05-26 22:21 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-27 21:39 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 22:00 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-27 22:22 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-26 17:02 ` Barry Fishman 2001-05-26 20:20 ` Harry Putnam 2001-05-27 23:38 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 23:42 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 3:08 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 4:28 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 5:21 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 9:23 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 20:00 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 21:52 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-26 5:33 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-26 22:24 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 11:46 ` Per Abrahamsen 2001-05-25 21:56 ` Jesper Harder 2001-05-25 16:21 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-26 6:45 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-26 22:22 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-27 21:46 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 21:45 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 22:48 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 2:01 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-24 22:53 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 1:38 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 14:56 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 20:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 20:39 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 22:04 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 22:15 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 22:34 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 22:47 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-26 5:26 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-27 22:15 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-27 23:02 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-27 23:20 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 20:30 ` Graham Murray 2001-05-24 21:13 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-24 21:26 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 1:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 2:27 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-25 4:10 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 9:37 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 19:54 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 3:10 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 4:11 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 5:20 ` Russ Allbery 2001-05-25 15:55 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 23:02 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 1:12 ` Stainless Steel Rat 2001-05-25 9:35 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-24 22:40 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 14:44 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-24 22:49 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-24 20:18 ` Christoph Conrad 2001-05-24 20:29 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 8:17 ` Christoph Conrad 2001-05-25 1:45 ` Karl Kleinpaste 2001-05-25 9:19 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 11:50 ` Karl Kleinpaste 2001-05-25 15:31 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 21:21 ` Christoph Conrad 2001-05-25 15:35 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 16:12 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 16:24 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 16:49 ` Kai Großjohann 2001-05-25 17:39 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 18:01 ` Bjørn Mork 2001-05-25 18:23 ` Paul Jarc 2001-05-25 18:01 ` Kai Großjohann
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).