In <200502231343(_dot_)10444(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
On Wed February 23 2005 07:37, Charles Lindsey wrote:
This latest draft fails to address the problem I reaised earlier, namely
that omitting the From field altogether breaks a widely deployed MTA,
namely sendmail (and maybe others too) which is regularly configured to
insert a From field of its own choosing if it finds none present already.
MTAs do not alter content; they are forbidden to do so. MSAs can be
configured to do so, but are recommended to tread lightly.
You fail to distinguish between what MTAs "do" and what they are
"supposed" to do (or not do). Sadly, in the real world, the perfect and
ideal MTA does not exist. It appears that one widely deployed MTA does the
"wrong thing". There may be others. We need to know.
I asked you (Bruce) to post a test message to this list containing no From
field (and no Message-ID field for that matter) so that the effect of your
proposal on existing MTAs could be evaluated. Why have you not done this?
Because of the general rule "don't feed the trolls". But since you
are so persistent,.. "What do you mean -- is that an African swallow
or a European one?".
Sorry, your subtlety excapes me. Are you going to post such a test
message, or are you going to bury your head in the sand and assert that it
cannot possibly go wrong because you say it cannot possibly go wrong?
--
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