On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Julian Mehnle wrote:
: Sender: mailing(_at_)úÚ×$6ª0ØÃkâD?¹Û??{?ÄÃ
: Nowhere did I suggest doing an "envelope-to-header check".
Ah, but this is precisely the thing mentioned earlier in this thread that
brought up having a header match the envelope.
: What I suggested was putting the envelope sender into the "Sender:" header
: when forwarding (as opposed to relaying). What's wrong with that?
Duplicating a piece of data that's already there (since MUAs are just as
likely to ignore Sender: as they are to ignore Return-Path:), and destroying
an important piece of data normally used to identify a mailing list.
I don't see the *usefulness* of rewriting Sender: at the same time as the
envelope.
--
-- Todd Vierling <tv(_at_)duh(_dot_)org> <tv(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
Wiki:
http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/HomePage
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡