Re: Sender header?

[prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)]

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