On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 22:49 +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
2. Do we have a decision about copying Received lines? I think we've
reversed ourselves, and no longer want to copy them from the original
message. Does that mean:
a. ...the spec should be changed from MAY copy to SHOULD NOT copy or
MUST NOT copy? If so, which?
b. ...the spec can remain as it is, with MAY (not SHOULD nor MUST)?
Mark's example of wanting to receive notification about automatically
generated alarms makes me wonder if we shouldn't use Received as the
loop prevention mechanism after all. it's definitely the safest method
of prevention. the risk is that users will run into hop count limits,
but I think most messages should be well clear of that.
4. We currently say MUST NOT notify if an Auto-Submitted header field
exists (apart from "no"). We had an inconclusive thread going with a
suggestion to change that. What's the consensus? If we're to change
it, what should we change it to, given that it's critical to our
loop-prevention story?
I am weakly in favor of keeping the current logic. I find your argument
about using redirect in this case to be convincing.
yes, but even if the Right Thing is to use redirect, it's quite likely
that a non-trivial amount of people will use notify instead.
Notification message:
Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org
for <recipient(_at_)example(_dot_)org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500
Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com
for <knitting(_at_)example(_dot_)com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500
Message-ID: <A2299BB(_dot_)FF7788(_at_)example(_dot_)org>
Auto-Submitted: sieve-notify;
owner-email="recipient(_at_)example(_dot_)org"
From: recipient(_at_)example(_dot_)org
To: 0123456789(_at_)sms(_dot_)example(_dot_)net
To: backup(_at_)example(_dot_)com
Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater
note, multiple To-headers is not allowed by 2822.
--
Kjetil T.