[Top] [All Lists]

Re: BATV breaks rfc2821bis?

2008-05-20 10:43:05

There has always been a many to 1 relationship between representations of the "sender mailbox" and what might be considered to be the "canonical" representation. Consider aliases. Consider subaddresses. Consider case differences. Consider limited-use aliases.

Which one goes into the 821.MAILFROM? Has it ever mattered? Does it matter if the MTA generates one "on the fly"?

Which is "the sender mailbox"? Just the canonical representation, or all of them?

        Tony Hansen

Alessandro Vesely wrote:

Section additionally states that "The reverse-path consists of the sender mailbox", not a variation thereof. That wording apparently bans using time-varying tags, unless we reinterpret BATV as a redistribution service for ephemeral ad-hoc lists, in the sense of section 3.9.2 (but beware poor subscription policies.) A rather cumbersome way to standardize things.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>