[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)
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.
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.
--
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