lyndon wrote:
But there is another issue that we need to address. Envelope-From:
is a valid message header. It's remotely conceivable that someone
might have a need to use it for another purpose. And there are
other SMTP parameters that it might be useful to set, e.g.:
deliver-by. I don't like the idea of co-opting yet more headers
out of the 822 namespace for this.
is there any technical reason that the proposed Envelope-From: header
functionality simply be named "Return-path:"? since i assume MH will
remove this header (whatever we call it) from the draft before
submitting to SMTP, i wouldn't think there's a conflict.
(other SMTP directives could still be done with syntax something like
that proposed by lyndon.)
paul
I would prefer to build these non-822 directives using a syntax that can't
be
confused with a valid 822 header. I suggest the format:
metahead = "." directive *(SP params)
directive = LETTER *(LETTER / DIGIT / "-")
params = ; free-form text to the end of line
In the new syntax the above example would be written as:
From: boss@example.com
Sender: grunt@example.com
.mail-from grunt+autodsnhandler@example.com
Post would strip out all the .foo meta-headers. Since these headers will be
specific to the backend transport I would suggest ignoring ones unknown to
the
backend, and giving the backend the ability to print warnings, or abort the
send, if there are problems processing a recognized directive.
--lyndon
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
=---------------------
paul fox, pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 67.6 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers