On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Phil Pennock wrote:
> Having software second-guess intentions is a recipe for trouble. The
> software which can best determine intent/necessity should do so. If the
> MUA knows that somebody is not supposed to see a line, the MUA is in the
> best place to enforce it.
For the record, I happen to have noticed this comment, which was sent by
Keith Moore to the ietf-822 mailing list. Keith has been involved in the
development of email standards for many years. He wrote:
OP: > No, MUAs often send raw message text to an executable transport agent
OP: > (e.g. sendmail) which examines the message header to determine
OP: > recipients.
KM: in that case, sendmail is performing part of the MUA's function.
KM: nothing says that the entire MUA has to be implemented in a single
KM: program.
In other words, he supports my statement that when Exim is constructing
the envelope from the header lines (the -t option), it is performing an
MUA function, a point that Derek was disputing earlier.
(I'm only just back. It will be some time before I get round to writing
a document to get this issue more widely discussed.)
Regards,
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
