On Tue, 1 Sep, 2020 at 09:59, Timo Sirainen <t...@sirainen.com> wrote:
On 1. Sep 2020, at 6.24, TACHIBANA Masashi <tachib...@qualitia.co.jp>
wrote:
Hi,
Is this expected or not?
From: us...@fuga.example.com <us...@example.com>
To: us...@hoge.example.com <us...@example.com>
↓
a uid fetch 43055 (envelope)
* 1860 FETCH (UID 43055 ENVELOPE ("Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:52:59 +0900"
"test1" ((NIL NIL "user1" "fuga.example.com")) ((NIL NIL "user1"
"fuga.example.com")) ((NIL NIL "user1" "fuga.example.com")) ((NIL
NIL "user2" "hoge.example.com")) NIL NIL NIL
"<WLXvFmpAZFNeQbPPITjRwimDyamnBm1@test>"))
This is an invalid email address, so it's neither correct nor
incorrect to have this output. But this reminded me that I was going
to discuss about this with other IETF people. Lets see what others
think:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/sqRTdsV_DGBhHu2ghdCDFo_pM8Q/
While it is an invalid email address, in the exact same vein as
<https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/2020-August/119658.html>
Dovecot's approach is unhelpful here, and means MUAs must download
complete headers rather than reply on envelope address structures. In
fact, unlike in the linked case this example this is actually a
security vulnerability: http://mailspolit.com/
As a MUA maintainer, I'd really like to see Dovecot take a more
proactive approach to sending useful values in envelope address
structure, so we don't have to download headers all the time.
From: "us...@fuga.example.com" <us...@example.com>
To: "us...@hoge.example.com" <us...@example.com>
↓
a uid fetch 43056 (envelope)
* 1861 FETCH (UID 43056 ENVELOPE ("Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:53:59 +0900"
"test1" (("us...@fuga.example.com" NIL "user1" "example.com"))
(("us...@fuga.example.com" NIL "user1" "example.com"))
(("us...@fuga.example.com" NIL "user1" "example.com"))
(("us...@hoge.example.com" NIL "user2" "example.com")) NIL NIL NIL
"<WLXvFmpAZFNeQbPPITjRwimDyamnBm2@test>"))
This is a valid email address, and ENVELOPE reply is correct.
Agreed.
//Mike
--
Michael Gratton.
<https://mjog.vee.net>
