Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
On 10/2/08, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrzej Kukula wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 18:29, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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).
