Picking the RFC2822 identity purely on the basis of visibility makes
no sense. ...
Yet that's the only reason I've seen offered for picking the
complexity of RFC2822 identities over the simplicity of RFC2821 MAIL
FROM.
The reason to pick a 2822 address is because those are the addresses
that are supposed to be visible. Here's a true life example, in which
I sent a message to a test majordomo2 list I have handy, and checked
the headers when it was received:
MAIL FROM:
prvs=testlist-owner+M2=jlevine=world.std.com/0769c31f78(_at_)lists(_dot_)gurus(_dot_)com
From: johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com
Sender: testlist-owner(_at_)lists(_dot_)gurus(_dot_)com
I don't think I know a whole lot of users whose experiences would be
enhanced by seeing that bounce address. It exists solely to receive
bounces. No human will ever see mail sent to it.
The From: and Sender: addresses, on the other hand, are both ones that
the recipient is likely to recognize. In this case, Sender: is the
list to which the person subscribed, and From: is an actual live
person. For reasons debated elsewhere I think that Sender: is the
correct address to use here, since from the recipient's point of view
the mail was sent by the list.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
http://www.taugh.com
PS: When making arguments about 2821 addresses, don't forget to
explain what the plan is when the 2821 address is <>.