From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36481 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sender header? Date: 27 May 2001 18:34:16 -0400 Message-ID: References: <01May23.141128edt.115245@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.115917edt.115250@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.143521edt.115214@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.153439edt.115213@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.163305edt.115259@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.172056edt.115272@gateway.intersys.com> <01May25.160823edt.115290@gateway.intersys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035172058 8828 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:47:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 20102 invoked by alias); 27 May 2001 22:34:16 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 20097 invoked from network); 27 May 2001 22:34:16 -0000 Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (261@129.22.96.25) by gnus.org with SMTP; 27 May 2001 22:34:16 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 31098 invoked by uid 500); 27 May 2001 22:34:38 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: "\(ding\)" In-Reply-To: (Stainless Steel Rat's message of "26 May 2001 01:09:01 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 34 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36481 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36481 Stainless Steel Rat 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