Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Curtis Maurand
I think that I would just use Z- just my $.02. --Curtis On 12/7/2016 2:19 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Eric Henson wrote: Just be aware that using XY will have you labeled as misogynist , XX will have you labeled a SJW, and XXX will get you blocked by porn filte

[mailop] Google Announces Invisible reCAPTCHA

2016-12-07 Thread Anthony Chiulli
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/12/06/are-you-human-or-a-bot-googles-invisible-recaptcha-will-decide/ This caught my eye with the recent Spamhaus 'list-bombing' implications to marketers who's sign up pages were unprotected. Depending on the intricacies of how this may work once releases, it

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Jim Popovitch
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Eric Henson wrote: > Just be aware that using XY will have you labeled as misogynist , XX will > have you labeled a SJW, and XXX will get you blocked by porn filters. > > :-) Damn the world is complicated. All I was thinking of was Pokémon. -Jim P.

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Eric Henson
Just be aware that using XY will have you labeled as misogynist , XX will have you labeled a SJW, and XXX will get you blocked by porn filters. :-) Eric Henson Server Team Manager PFS p: 972.881.2900 x 3104 m: 972.948.3424 www.pfsweb.com -Original Message- From: mailop [mai

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread John Levine
>> Really, if you need to invent a header, just invent one and don't >> pretend that anyone told you to use a X- name. > >So you can choose any name you want as long as it doesn't start with >X- ? :-)I'm going to start naming headers XY- just because it's >allowed by RFCs. Hey, this is the I

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Brandon Long via mailop
On Dec 7, 2016 9:27 AM, "Jim Popovitch" wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, John Levine wrote: >>5. Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use >>of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name" >>token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Jim Popovitch
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, John Levine wrote: >>5. Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use >>of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name" >>token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those >>protocols. >> >

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread John Levine
>5. Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use >of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name" >token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those >protocols. > >So, X headers are still the way to go it seems for SMTP..

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Michael Peddemors
On 16-12-07 07:58 AM, Ned Freed wrote: /me is going to go with Envelope-To, as it's going to be the easiest to explain to users "this is from the envelope at SMTP delivery time, not the To: or Cc: or anywhere else". FWIW, we chose the closely related X-Envelope-To: for this function many year

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread John R Levine
Legitimate eXtension headers as X- are easily filtered as "this is something you shouldn't pay attention to because it's not part of any standard". Take away the X- and you go back to the 'ok what is legitimate and what is not' situation... Oh, that's easy. They're all legitimate. If you're

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Michelle Sullivan
John Levine wrote: In article <584815fc.40...@sorbs.net> you write: David Hofstee wrote: The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one... If you read the document, you'd know that it said that if people actually use an

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Ned Freed
> /me is going to go with Envelope-To, as it's going to be the easiest to > explain to users "this is from the envelope at SMTP delivery time, not the To: > or Cc: or anywhere else". FWIW, we chose the closely related X-Envelope-To: for this function many years ago. (At the time best practice was

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Steve Atkins
> On Dec 6, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Steve Atkins wrote: > > I know there's no standard header for storing the envelope recipients for a > message (for good reason, especially when it comes to Bccs) but there are > times when it's useful. > > Does anyone know of a system that does that? I'm stashing

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Michael Rathbun
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:10:49 +0100, Gilles Chehade via mailop wrote: >On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:00:28AM +1000, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >> David Hofstee wrote: >> > The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 >> > >> Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one...

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread John Levine
In article <584815fc.40...@sorbs.net> you write: >David Hofstee wrote: >> The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 >> >Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one... If you read the document, you'd know that it said that if people actually use an X- header it's t

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Gilles Chehade via mailop
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:00:28AM +1000, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > David Hofstee wrote: > > The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 > > > Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one... > > :/ > wow, missed that one :-/ -- Gilles Chehade https://www.pool

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Michelle Sullivan
David Hofstee wrote: The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 Oh now there's a bad idea if ever I heard one... :/ Michelle ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listin

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread Tony Finch
John Levine wrote: > > Oh, and some MTAs put them in Delivered-To: lines at the top of the > message, after the Return-Path:. Or Envelope-To: http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-message_processing.html#SECID225 Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

2016-12-07 Thread David Hofstee
The X- type headers are deprecated... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 Met vriendelijke groet, David Hofstee Deliverability Management MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP) - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "John Levine" Aan: mailop@mailop.org Cc: st...@blighty.com Verzonden: Woensdag 7 de