On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 12:02 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
We should not abuse the Resent-From: header. Instead, we should either
introduce a new header or simply add a new field to the Received:
header. I favour the latter.
The Received: field already includes a "for" clause which contains the
recipients of the message. It is usually omitted if there is more than one
recipient for privacy reasons (otherwise it could expose BCC recipients).
The 'for' clause indicates recipients, while a new clause would indicate
the purported _sender_ for the hop in question. It would be 'on behalf
of' or something similar.
If Sender-ID were to use that clause, what should it contain in the
multiple recipients case? At least Resent-From: mailer-daemon makes some
kind of sense. Received: for unspecified-recipients(_at_)unspecified-domains?
For there to be multiple senders, I assume you speak of the case where
the original message was to multiple local recipients, each of whom has
a .forward file directed at a users on a the same third party host, and
your MTA wants to send those messages in the same SMTP transaction.
The problem is the same as with the Resent-From: header. Yes, you
probably just use a mailer-dæmon address.
I wasn't proposing any change to the information you include -- only
that you should put it somewhere new instead of abusing the Resent-From:
header.
--
dwmw2