[Top] [All Lists]

Re: revised Email Architecture draft

2005-01-29 13:59:27

On Fri January 28 2005 20:25, Dave Crocker wrote:
  Yes, but that's no problem, only Sender-ID fans hate this idea.  As long
  as there is no Sender: I'd consider the mailbox in the Return-Path: as
  some kind of default "sender". 

That would be a mistake.

If there is no rfc2822.sender field, then rfc2822.from is defined as holding 
the (virtual) value of sender.

 If a Sender: mailbox is spec> > the language that says what to actually DO 
with this string is
 > clear and straightforward:  it is a notifications address.

  Sure, but as "originator" I can't specify whatever I like, it's an
  address for error reports...
  If I'd think that ICANN should solve my mail problems, then I'm
  still _not_ free to say "bounces to ICANN".  

That is why the architecture document states that the rfc2822.sender 
specifies the value in rfc2821.mailfrom.

That is as wrong as Frank's suggestion. RFC282{12}.Return-Path
specifies the value in RFC2821.mailfrom.