著者: Kai Henningsen 日付: To: exim-users 題目: Re: [Exim] Should vacation messages go to reply_address or return_path
woods@??? (Greg A. Woods) wrote on 13.08.00 in <20000813165333.34AD18E@???>:
> go to the $sender_address, but rather to the $reply_addresses. Note
> also that the SMTP envelope sender address is not a concept that RFC-822
> really knows anything about either (nor should it -- e-mail is transport
> independent!).
Actually, it does, sort-of. The sender address appears in Return-Path:.
> Excuse me? Unless you're talking strictly about SMTP (which would be
> irrelevant to this thread), you're wrong. If I'm not mistaken Exim does
> as Smail and Sendmail before it do -- they all translate the empty SMTP
> return path ("<>") into the mailbox name "MAILER-DAEMON", and usually
> append the helo name to qualify it, IIRC. In the case of Smail at least
In From:. But we're not talking about From:.
> I've never, ever, not once, seen '<>' appear in an automatically
> generated RFC-822 header, especially not in a bounce, and I can't find
> any evidence of it either in my RFC collection, nor in of my megabytes
> of archived real e-mail.
Umm, I see lots of those in my mail, coming through Exim. You're not
looking very hard, it seems.
As for RFCs, I suggest you start with 1123. A short grep suggests 788,
821, 1891, 2476, 2505, 2554 might also have something to say about it.
Someone who doesn't know this stuff has no business writing any email
software, IMNSHO. That's like driving without a license.
