Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks
2004-07-26 20:56:40
In the case of an MUA, an invalid address will result in a
notification
or bounce
only if it's an envelope recipient address.
No, MUAs often send raw message text to an executable transport agent
(e.g. sendmail) which examines the message header to determine
recipients.
in that case, sendmail is performing part of the MUA's function.
nothing says that the entire MUA has to be implemented in a single
program.
As noted above, the most important thing is that the sender envelope
address be usable.
in a news-to-mail gateway?
No, for general gateways -- Usenet news has no equivalent of a sender
envelope address, as noted.
it's easy to lose context in these kinds of discussions. and when
talking about gateways it's really important to consider these issues
on a case-by-case basis, and carefully consider each case separately.
Usenet news is an application of the RFC [2]822 Internet Message
Format.
no more than SMTP is an application of the FTP protocol.
SMTP replaced FTP mail-specific commands(and the short-lived MTP) for
transport of messages. The mail-specific FTP commands, MTP, and SMTP
transport(ed) Internet Message Format content (RFCs 561, 680, 724, 733,
822, 2822). As do POP (several versions), IMAP, NNTP, LMTP, and RFC
2476
submission protocol. It's certainly true that NNTP is a different
protocol
from SMTP, and both differ from POP (although there are similarities in
those three, e.g. byte-stuffing), and all three of those differ from
IMAP.
Nevertheless, they all transport Internet Message Format content.
nope. that kind of overgeneralization just causes confusion.
Keith
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, (continued)
- RE: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks,
Keith Moore <=
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly |
Next by Date: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly |
Next by Thread: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|