nmh-workers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Using "Sender" in replcomps

1995-05-06 10:06:05
 The line in the default replcomps, which goes like this:

/usr/lib/mh/replcomps:%(lit)%(formataddr 
%<{reply-to}%?{from}%?{sender}%?{return-path}%>)\

 should have "%?{sender}" removed per RFC 822:

      o   The  "Sender"  field  mailbox  should  NEVER  be  used
          automatically, in a recipient's reply message.

 unless a nearby paragraph is very loosely interpreted:

      This recommendation is intended  only  for  automated  use  of
      originator-fields  and is not intended to suggest that replies
      may not also be sent to other recipients of messages.   It  is
      up  to  the  respective  mail-handling programs to decide what
      additional facilities will be provided.

 The uppercase NEVER is rather emphatic, however.

Notice that the sender field is only used if both the reply-to and from
field are blank.  What's a mailer agent supposed to do?  I think falling
back on the from field is completely reasonable, as it's a next-best
option sort of thing.

Should it skip sender and go directly to return-path? I think not,
because the return-path not only is supposed to go back to the
_sender_ (and thus we've gained nothing), but it is a 'trace' field:

     4.3.  TRACE FIELDS

          Trace information is used to provide an audit trail of  mes-
     sage  handling.   In  addition,  it indicates a route back to the
     sender of the message.

...

     4.3.1.  RETURN-PATH

        This field  is  added  by  the  final  transport  system  that
        delivers  the message to its recipient.  The field is intended
        to contain definitive information about the address and  route
        back to the message's originator.

        Note:  The "Reply-To" field is added  by  the  originator  and
               serves  to  direct  replies,  whereas the "Return-Path"
               field is used to identify a path back to  the  origina-
               tor.

...

It thus is intended for auditing, not for use by the user.  That would
seem to doubly disqualify return-path.  If the reply-to, from and sender
fields were all missing, this would be my last straw. (If it's missing
as well, you need to not only shoot the person who sent it (if you can
determine that), but also shoot your local MTA, as it should have
created the reply-to header (probably from the envelope from).)

Philip Guenther
guenther(_at_)stolaf(_dot_)edu


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