From: mouss (moussnetoyen.net)
Date: Thu Oct 02 2008 - 12:37:58 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
> On 10/2/08, mouss <moussnetoyen.net> wrote:
>> Andrzej Kukula wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 18:29, mouss <moussnetoyen.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI, RFCs 5321 and 5322 "obsolete" 2821 and 2822 (respectively).
>>>>
>>> Again there's no mention of Delivered-To header for loop detection.
>>>
>> loop detection is not part of smtp.
>>
>>
>>> Did you spot anything useful there?
>>>
>> This is not the place to discuss the standards.
>>
>
> "Delivered to" could be mentioned by the RFC, as well as
> "Apparently-to" is mentioned as "should not be used".
>

The situation is different.

It is one thing to discourage the use of an unsafe header.

it is another one to "mandate" (or even "officially approve") the use of
Delivered-To.

Loop detection is easier to solve locally, and Delivered-To is one of
the used heuristics. but all this is too easily broken by and admin or a
developper (it takes one header_check to remove the said header, another
one to remove all Received headers, and a parameter config to change the
helo name. and if a proxy or a forwarder is in the path, it's even
easier to break things).

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]