Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)

[Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>]

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Peter Ziobrzynski wrote:

> Matti Aarnio wrote:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> >         I have thought hard wether or not to do what
> >         I consider 'sendmailism'; namely removing the
> >         current 'To: some-comment:;' being generated
> >         at the router when no 'To:' header exists, and
> >         replace that by adding sendmail-like 'Apparently-To:'
> >         header at the delivery time at the mailbox (and
> >         perhaps sm) channels.
> > 
> >         At the use of the physical delivery address there
> >         are 'interesting' side-effects when somebody uses
> >         procmail et.al. things running on pipes, and the
> >         "user"-field on the receiver definitions tells
> >         that one...
> > 
> >         Any opinnions ?
> > 
> > /Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>
> 
> I would vote for it. It provides some additional information on
> how the message was delivered.

  "to each his own" ... but are you aware that Apparently-To is
non-standard?

> The same function but in reverse provides RFC821 'Return-Path:'
> which should be added at the final delivery to record <reverse-path>
> of the protocol - but frequently is not.

  The somewhat non-standard "Delivered-To:" that Qmail uses would be
useful for this.  Qmail adds a "Delivered-To:" to all mail, not just to
mail without a To:, Cc:, or Bcc.  It is interesting idea.

  I think that the Zmailer router should always copy the envelope sender
into a "Return-Path" header.  IMO, the "Return-Path" header is a very good
thing.

> -- 
> Peter Ziobrzynski, netMedia Technology Inc. <pzi@netmediatech.com>
> 204 Richmond St. #300, Toronto Ontario, Canada, M5V-1V6
> tel.(416) 596-8520x242, fax.(416) 596-8610
> 

Tom