Keith Moore wrote:
[Nit] Eric Allman's name is missing in the authors' list
at the top of the document.
Indeed, already reported on the ASRG list some weeks ago.
"originator" might be an even better term than "sender".
| a MAIL command indicating the sender of the mail
...quoth the bible STD 10. It has a nice picture (figure 1).
It also uses "originator", same semantics as "sender" in this
I am using "sender" more-or-less like it is defined in RFC
Oops, that's a standard about the format of text messages. It
is not limited to SMTP, why do you want it here ? Also okay:
| trace = return ; path to sender
| 1*received ; receipt tags
| return = "Return-path" ":" route-addr ; return address
So the "sender" is in the "return address" or "Return-Path", in
your memo you have _three_ return addresses, that's different.
anonymous mail is valuable in corner cases
Yes. Somebody will take the technical "sender" responsibility.
the ability to send mail through an MSA not related to the
sender's From address
Anon servers as special type of MSA ? It's an idea, I don't
see where that's a problem in draft-hutzler-spamops.
operators of MSAs SHOULD NOT restrict authorized submitters
to using particular From addresses, Sender addresses, and/or
MAIL FROM addresses.
Quite the contrary. That's exactly what they SHOULD do, if
they are no anon servers. It's already an option in RfC 2476
and RfC 2476bis (6.1) for MAIL FROM, and another option for
the 822-Sender in (8.1).
Figure 1, at the end of section 4 is difficult to read. I
can't make heads or tails of it.
It says "roaming users use port 587 (through an entity titled
'INTERNET'), while local users use port 25 or 587 to submit."
'MUA,l' = local user, 'MUA.r' = roaming user. Bye, Frank