Re: [Exim] -t and Resent- header lines

Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2003, Sean Witham wrote:
>
>
>>Which is a good point. Email forwarded privately should be bounced back
>>to the forwarder not the original sender if it is to remain private.
>
>
> The problem case is not manual forwarding. The problem case is automatic
> forwarding where the original mailbox is never inspected. In effect, the
> equivalent of aliasing.
>

My point was about two concepts of automatic forwarding. The first is
"Private", where only the original recipient address (if possible,
failing that its postmaster) should know about forwarding failures and
its details. The second "Public", where the original recipient address
is quite happy for the original sender to know about the forwarding
and of any problems completing the task.

An alias as implemented by Exim and sendmail is neither of these in
that if it succeeds it remains a private detail that the sender does
not know about but if it fails it may indeed cause a bounce to be sent
back to the original sender.

Sorry if I gave the impression if I was talking about manual
forwarding (which is private). I was trying to point out the
difference between the perceived desired effects of two forwarding
ideologies and how they conflict with what we currently do. I assumed
because of the illustrious audience that I need not spell out what is
currently done and that the conflicts are self evident.

I don't remember sending my original reply to the list so this reply
may look a little strange without the rest of the original text.

--Sean