On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 04:07 +0000, John Levine wrote:
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
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.
The Sender: address isn't actually the same as the list address. It
does, however, contain 'testlist' and '@lists.gurus.com', just as the
reverse-path does. The reverse-path is indeed more obfuscated though.
So now we have at least _some_ argument for using RFC2822 addresses --
the fact that they're easier to recognise.
So talk me through what happens when I resend your interesting mail to
someone else for them to read:
MAIL FROM:<dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org>
Resent-From: dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org
From: johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com
Sender: testlist-owner(_at_)lists(_dot_)gurus(_dot_)com
PS: When making arguments about 2821 addresses, don't forget to
explain what the plan is when the 2821 address is <>.
Was the explanation in
<1102376600(_dot_)5122(_dot_)64(_dot_)camel(_at_)localhost(_dot_)localdomain>
insufficient?
--
dwmw2