In <200503151817(_dot_)41795(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
On Tue March 15 2005 15:26, Keith Moore wrote:
FWIW, when I tried sending a message to this list without a From field,
a) sendmail immediately added a From:
Though I suspect that was Keith's submission sendmail. More interesting is
what intermediate relaying MTAs might do.
Bruce has been repeatedly asked to submit a message with no From field to
this list, and he has persistently refused to do so.
Possibly a configuration option... I'd have to check.
I hope this is addressed by the updated Security considerations
No, the updated Security considerations section is confusing waffle
intended to disguise the fact that your method is likely to have serious
practical flaws in comparison with other methods.
b) the message never appeared on the list
1. As Russ has noted, that may be due to list moderation (or
2. I don't yet know why, but messages to other IMC-hosted mailing
lists have recently taken >15 hours to appear at subscribers'
But if it is a result of the initial missing From, then it is a serious
In all your arguments against other people's suggestions, you have
persistently failed to distinguish between problems which might cause a
message not to be delivered (or not seen when it is delivered) and
problems which would merely cause difficulties upon an attempt to reply.
Problems of the first type would be a complete bar to any proposal.
Problems of the second type might well be tolerated. I doubt that <> or
<-(_at_)> would prevent delivery, whereas Keith's evidence shows (until some
explanation can be found) that omission of From does.
IMHO either From: <> or From: <-(_at_)> would work better.
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