John Levine via Postfix-users wrote in <20250224023703.967cbbd77...@ary.qy>: |It appears that Bill Cole via Postfix-users <postfixlists-070913@billmai\ |l.scconsult.com> said: |>What sort of "support" would you expect to see in a MTA? | |When that RFC was published a lot of us were sceptical that anyone \ |would use the Author header |since there had been no interest whatsoever from any MTA or MUA developers \ |or operators. | |As far as I know, Steffen is the only person anywhere who has done \ |so. So I wouldn't hold |my breath expecting it to interoperate.
Compared to how eager the HTTP landscape follows IETF development, it seems the email side of the road has lost attention of theirs. (Or maybe it is only me not looking as thoroughly.) Maybe this is not at least because of "very fundamental architectural and policy reasons" (to quote John Klensin) that stand against certain email developments of the last one+ decades (which is *my* own addendum to a much more profound and contextual message of John Klensin, mind you). I agree with Robert Elz (kre@) that Author: would not be really needed as there was a very clear standard on how From: and Sender: were to be used, "It truly is simple. Or should be.", yet that is not how it developed. And there comes Crocker's Author, which appeared out of nowhere on the IETF announcement list for me, so maybe i am missing the one or other subscription, and at least addresses the current state of mess, ie "RFC5322.From", and its (mis)use. (Of course all that was iterated to death on several lists, for example internet history pre Corona, where i said the same that Robert Elz says here, unless i am totally mistaken, but i was coming from MUA development and 532[12]standard reading, .. this one not, however.) It will not get better even with my DKIMACDC (that of course will not make it) as changes to a message break a cryptographic signature, and leaving From: unchanged in that case is .. possibly even criminal, dependent on the impact of the change, of course. But then there is the "RFC5322.From" brain damage, and one would need to replace the entire infrastructure, all at once, to get it done the right way. Is it. Or, completely different, and i quote Robert Elz, who surely would accept this, for the sake of positivity, context, development, etc etc: Then the mailing list resends the message, the original Sender is no longer relevant, that message was sent and received - the Sender for the message from the list should be the list (the list's admin address, not the addr to which messages are sent for redistribution). That's the entity which pushed "send" on the message being distributed to the list subscribers. which brings me back to the fact that neither ietfworwarding stuff nor this list feel the necessity to set Sender: at all. But the former changes the message, breaks the RFC5322.From signature, without giving a shit that only fecal language can describe, can it. Current state of email affairs is a total disaster. That much is plain. P.S.: everybody hates it, but i Cc: a...@ietf.org. (It has seen worse stuff.) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) _______________________________________________ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
