[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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




Tom Samplonius comments on Peter Ziobrzynski:
>
>   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.

	The lattest ZMailers (..41+) add the "Return-Path:" when they
	do the FINAL delivery on MAILBOX, or on SM -- that header does
	not have life outside your mailbox... (or procmail..)  In fact
	the router deletes any "Return-Path:" that may exist in the
	incoming message. (RFC-822 madates that header, I recall.)

	The "Delivered-To:" in an idea where message expansion history
	is recorded on the header -- thus list expansion, and final-
	delivery should always add a new item to the list (in canonic
	format).  A message sent to the zmailer -list would go out from
	this server with:
		Delivered-To: zmailer@nic.funet.fi
	and when it arrives to my mailbox, that header is changed into:
		Delivered-To: zmailer@nic.funet.fi, mea@nic.funet.fi

	In the router it is not very easy to rebuild new headers at whim
	for each recipient, thus I don't much like that...  (But qmail
	where that idea was brewed up does operate in different mode.
	All things it does are different programs being started and
	stopped all the time.  The list-expansions are done via final-
	delivery mode.)

> > -- 
> > Peter Ziobrzynski, netMedia Technology Inc. <pzi@netmediatech.com>
> Tom

	/Matti Aarnio