From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36367 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sender header? Date: 25 May 2001 00:40:14 +0200 Message-ID: References: <01May23.141128edt.115245@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.115917edt.115250@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.143521edt.115214@gateway.intersys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035171965 8241 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:46:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:46:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "(ding)" Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 123 invoked by alias); 24 May 2001 22:40:44 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 118 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 22:40:43 -0000 Original-Received: from waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de (129.217.4.42) by gnus.org with SMTP; 24 May 2001 22:40:43 -0000 Original-Received: from marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de [129.217.20.159]) by waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de with ESMTP id AAA04230; Fri, 25 May 2001 00:40:15 +0200 (MES) Original-Received: from lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (lucy [129.217.20.160]) by marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de id AAA27815; Fri, 25 May 2001 00:40:15 +0200 (MET DST) Original-Received: (from grossjoh@localhost) by lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id AAA04096; Fri, 25 May 2001 00:40:15 +0200 X-Face: 6=pZ4hVbjN:C?j1$h/-bi4:F%*~B#Rxb$[0%!{5NK"dE:_QRAM]Dzl=$yMu%Rh4xCSm/#>! $n%@SHJ](KFJKL,uF\=G=bRJQC$ ?+Dlxu*pj.Z,-GK<~y7sd/l*PN\]>} In-Reply-To: <01May24.143521edt.115214@gateway.intersys.com> (Stainless Steel Rat's message of "Thu, 24 May 2001 14:35:06 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.0.104 Original-Lines: 105 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36367 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36367 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 Gro=DFjohann) 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 --=20 ~/.signature: No such file or directory