In <41521714(_dot_)7090202(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
And MTAs.
Why MTAs? MSAs perhaps.
Some MTAs rewrite addresses. For example, a border MTA may rewrite
foo(_at_)bar(_dot_)baz(_dot_)com as foo(_at_)baz(_dot_)com in order to hide
internal host names.
If such addresses are rewritten in the envelope and in standard
address fields, then any new address field that is intended to be
used by recipients should be similarly processed.
The proper solution for that is for the author to configure his MUA to
always use foo(_at_)baz(_dot_)com as his From/Reply-To address (most MUAs
provide
that config option, which would probably also be automatically used within
MFT is the agent was smart enough to be MFT aware.
But I agree that the sysadmin in charge to the border might also configure
his MTA to do that rewrite (it is indeed commonly done), in which case he
would have to apply it to all the various headers we are talking about. I
have no doubt sendmail.cf could be made to do it.
Looks like we have to choose some least-harmful
alternative. Reply-To is what we have at the moment, and it is clearly not
working.
It works fine for me...
But not for anybody else, apparently.
It seems to work fine for others that use it also.
Nobody on this list is using it except for you.
We are discussing a suggestion that it might be introduced as a solution
to the problem. You do not need ABNF and a full draft (though they would
be required eventually). But, if you insist, that you may consult
ftp://ftp.dsv.su.se/users/jpalme/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00b.txt.
Oddly, that draft does not actually specify any ABNF, but you may assume
it intended syntax similar to the Reply-To field in RFC 2822.
Actually there is a syntax specification (however it omits the
colon which delimits field name from field body...). You also
seem to be very confused about address fields; you claim that
the syntax in Jacob's 5-year-old draft is intended to be like
that of the Reply-To field, but Jacob's draft specifies a
mailbox-list whereas Reply-To uses an address list. That
draft would make wide responses difficult at best, since it
deprecates such wide responses. There are provisions that are
impractical for implementation.
Yes, that draft was written in the middle of DRUMS, before the final form
of RFC 2822 was fixed. If we wanted to follow that route, then there are
several things in that draft I would like to change.
But its most interesting feature was that it took it for granted that an
MUA would know when it was doing a "group reply", and that implies that
some form of "Reply-to-List" button was envisaged.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5