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

[Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>]

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Adrian J Bool wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> 
> > [ On Thu, November 21, 1996 at 22:26:57 (+0200), Matti Aarnio wrote: ]
> > > Subject: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)
> > >
> > > 	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.
> > 
> > I'll vote against "apparently-to:".  I don't like it, and I don't think
> > it is of any real benefit.
> 
> It is!! What I use it for is to grab the value within
> the SMTP MAIL To:<> command and to preserve this within
> the email itself - else this information gets lost.

  Apparently-To is not a good solution for what you want to do.
Apparently-To is only added if there is no To: header.  But what happens
if there is a To: header, but if it is different that the rcpt to: ?

  Using something like "Delivered-To:" is better for your needs.  Of
course you could always try parsing Received: lines as well.

Tom