On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Jeremy Harris <jgh@???> wrote:
> On 08/10/14 19:49, Todd Lyons wrote:
>> virtual_forwarder:
>> driver = redirect
>> data = LOOKUP_FORWARDER_ADDRESSES
>> headers_add = Resent-From: $local_part@$domain
>> headers_add = Resent-To: LOOKUP_FORWARDER_ADDRESSES
>> headers_add = Resent-Date: $tod_full
>> <snip>
>
> I'd suggest not using the word "Resent" in that header; for
> me at least it's too close to implying actual SMTP transmission.
> "Redirected", possibly.
Jeremy is correct here. Resent-* has a different intended use than
the way I showed it above.
> A personal choice, I'd agree.
After re-reading RFC 5322, I think it's not a personal choice, rather
it is an RFC compliance issue:
Note: Reintroducing a message into the transport system and using
resent fields is a different operation from "forwarding".
"Forwarding" has two meanings:
<snip>
Forwarding may
also mean that a mail transport program gets a message and
forwards it on to a different destination for final delivery.
Resent header fields are not intended for use with either type of
forwarding.
So me recommending that the OP do this was an actual RFC
non-compliance. Additionally, they are supposed to be inserted at the
beginning of the headers. The headers_add function in the routers and
transports can only add headers to the end of the header stack (they
don't honor the :at_start: and :rfc_whatever: designations that the
regular acl header_add honors).
Instead, do this:
>> headers_add = X-Forward-From: $local_part@$domain
>> headers_add = X-Forward-To: LOOKUP_FORWARDER_ADDRESSES
To the OP: in case you are unaware, X-* headers are typically used as
"informational", but are not standardized. Here's some pros, cons,
and history of X-* headers:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14469110/what-do-x-headers-in-mails-stand-for
...Todd
--
The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0.
If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want,
send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine
