On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:33:29AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > "William" == William D Tallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well damn!!! I am genuinely impressed and appreciative of this
response! Have it saved off in a separate file to study. Mr. Turnbull
has my sincere thanks for
> "William" == William D Tallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
William> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:11:22PM +0900, Stephen
William> J. Turnbull wrote:
>> I don't think that is the way that RFC writers in general
>> think.
William> Yes, so I gather.
:-)
William> Which m
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:11:22PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > "William" == William D Tallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> William> How does the RFC, or the writers thereof, define "user"?
>
> They don't. IMHO (there are those more expert than I on this list)
> anything that
> "William" == William D Tallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
William> How does the RFC, or the writers thereof, define "user"?
They don't. IMHO (there are those more expert than I on this list)
anything that is normally expected to touch the headers or body of a
message is a "user" for t
On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 13:27 -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
> > I'd like to work up an unofficial diff to Mailman 2.1 for people like
> > Stephen who are willing to give it a try on a live site.
>
> I'm not sure this is even necessary.
>
> Ezmlm doesn't touch the Sender: header at all, Majordomo s
On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 18:16 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Neal Groothuis wrote:
> >
> >Mailman is not the originator of the message, so it should
> >not be tampering with the From: or Sender: fields at all.
>
>
> This is arguably not true. Mailman may add a list header and/or list
> footer to the
Neal Groothuis wrote:
>
>Mailman is not the originator of the message, so it should
>not be tampering with the From: or Sender: fields at all.
This is arguably not true. Mailman may add a list header and/or list
footer to the body of the message as well as potentially filtering or
scrubbing vari
Watching this with interest; a newbie learns...
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:27:40PM -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
> It might be appropriate for Mailman to add Resent-* headers, depending
> on how one reads RFC 2822, 3.6.6. I personally don't think it's
> necessary or useful, since list servers
I'd like to work up an unofficial diff to Mailman 2.1 for people like
Stephen who are willing to give it a try on a live site.
I'm not sure this is even necessary.
Ezmlm doesn't touch the Sender: header at all, Majordomo sets it to the
owner of the list, and (AFAICT) Listserv sets it to the
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 00:00 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Sender doesn't instruct *conformant* MTAs at all, does it? AFAIK the
> only thing that a RFC 2821-conforming MTA looks at is the Return-Path
> header, and it's supposed to remove that.
>
> So this is purely a matter of pragmatic sel
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 19:12 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> I think we need to gather a lot more information about the likely
> outcome from this change, and I think the best way to achieve this is
> through giving admins (either site admins or list admins) the ability
> to set an option and
On 4/29/06 8:00 AM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sender doesn't instruct *conformant* MTAs at all, does it? AFAIK the
> only thing that a RFC 2821-conforming MTA looks at is the Return-Path
> header, and it's supposed to remove that.
There is no Return-Path: header during t
At 12:00 AM +0900 2006-04-30, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Brad> If we need something that will be noticed by other MTAs
> Brad> beyond the envelope sender and the "Return-Path:" &
> Brad> "Errors-To:" headers, then we're going to have to carefully
> Brad> think about this.
>
>
> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At 7:50 PM -0400 2006-04-28, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Whatever else we decide, I don't agree, or at least, it won't
>> help us. $3.6.6 says that Resent-* headers are to be added by
>> a user. It also says that these are purely i
Yes, and it still happens. Apparently, AOL has some filter based on a FROM:
address matching a specific list, and bounces it with an SPF error, which it
clearly is not.
Bob
-- Original Message ---
From: Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Have you tried turning on full person
At 7:50 PM -0400 2006-04-28, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 13:05 -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
>
>> As I noted in my previous response, I believe that the correct field (if
>> Mailman were to add a "Sender:" header) to add would be "Resent-Sender".
>>Please see RFC 2822, sectio
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 14:08 -0400, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...Trouble similar to a current problem I am having with AOL: they are
> bouncing all email with the
> FROM: address of a specific AOL user, when mailman delivers the
> messages to -any- aol or cs.com
> address.
Have you tried tu
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 13:05 -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
> As I noted in my previous response, I believe that the correct field (if
> Mailman were to add a "Sender:" header) to add would be "Resent-Sender".
> Please see RFC 2822, section 3.6.6.
Whatever else we decide, I don't agree, or at le
Now that I have a few minutes to breath ;) I'll try to summarize my
thoughts on this, and then perhaps go back later and follow up to
specific points later in the thread.
I'm sympathetic to ripping out the Sender: field munging. It was always
primarily a workaround for buggy MTAs. If the majorit
Dallas Bethune wrote:
>For our uses just
>changing that list-bounces address to something less ominous looking
>would help.
It definitely looks to me as if something needs to be done. I think
perhaps offering 3 options either to the list admin on a per-list
basis with a site default or just a
Don't forget to consider things like SPF, which I think uses the sender field.
Whatever is used for
SPF _must_ be the domain of the mailman box, or you're gonna run into a pack of
trouble.
...Trouble similar to a current problem I am having with AOL: they are bouncing
all email with the
FROM
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 10:29 -0700, John W. Baxter wrote:
> On 4/28/06 6:06 AM, "Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 22:46 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> >
> >> If the previous value of the "Sender:" field is being lost, then
> >> that should be corrected. At the ve
John W. Baxter wrote:
Probably, indeed. But what happens if that header was already "taken" in
the process that brought the message to mailman for distribution to the
list?
As I noted in my previous response, I believe that the correct field (if
Mailman were to add a "Sender:" header) to add
On 4/28/06 6:06 AM, "Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 22:46 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
>
>> If the previous value of the "Sender:" field is being lost, then
>> that should be corrected. At the very least, the value should be
>> saved in an "Old-Sender:" or "Previo
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 22:46 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> If the previous value of the "Sender:" field is being lost, then
> that should be corrected. At the very least, the value should be
> saved in an "Old-Sender:" or "Previous-Sender:" or some other
> suitable renamed sender field.
P
25 matches
Mail list logo
