I sent this in, back in January.
Can it make it onto the new wishlist, please ?
Philip Hazel (ph10@???) wrote on Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:52:48 (GMT)
> On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Peter Radcliffe wrote:
> > I noticed a difference in the headers between our sendmail boxen and the
> > exim boxen - when relaying/sending out remote messages the sendmail boxes
> > put the address they are relaying for/sending to in the received: header:
> >
> > Received: from boxone.domain (root@??? [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx])
> > by boxtwo.domain (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA14886
> > for <user@domain>; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:22:25 -0500 (EST)
> >
> > I find this useful for tracking which address a message actually got sent
> > to if I was bcc:ed or it was spam and the to: header is rubbish, since
> > I have quite a few aliases pointing to the same account which are bounced
> > through external relays.
> >
> > I tried to add this to my received_header_text:
> > received_header_text = "Received: \
> > ${if def:sender_fullhost {from ${sender_fullhost} \
> > ${if def:sender_ident {(${sender_ident})}}\n\t}\
> > {${if def:sender_ident {from ${sender_ident} }}}}\
> > by ${primary_hostname} \
> > ${if def:received_protocol {with ${received_protocol}}} \
> > (Exim)\n\t\
> > id ${message_id} for <${user}@${domain}>"
> >
> > but $user} and ${domain} appear to be empty at this point (I just got
> > "... for <@>").
>
> Yes, well, a message is allowed to have many recipients. That is why
> $local_part and $domain are not set at this point.
>
> If you put all recipients into the Received header, then they are all
> revealed to all recipients, which is not what is wanted when Bcc
> recipients are involved. (I believe Sendmail does this only if there is
> just one recipient address.)
>
> The envelope address information at final delivery is provided by Exim
> in the Envelope-To header, which it adds per delivery. The option
> envelope_to_add is on by default for appendfile, and off for pipe (can't
> remember quite why this choice was made).
>
> > I was just wondering if there is a reason for this, and if it could be
> > added to the wish list if its reasonable ...
>
> I have made a note to think about this in the case of a single envelope
> addressee, as I can see it is potentially useful for sticking in the
> Received header by an intermediate MTA.
--
pir pir@??? pir@??? pir@???
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
