roberts@nimrod.wpd.sgi.com (roberts) (03/02/91)
As sendmail currently works, errors are sent to both the sender of a message, and to any addresses contained in an Errors-To: header. This seems incorrect to me. Shouldn't the address(es) contained in any Errors-To: header supercede any other addresses for receiving errors? Isn't that what the header was designed for? This would seem analogous to the Reply-To: header. Comments please. - Robert Stephens
moore@chili.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) (03/03/91)
In article <88419@sgi.sgi.com>, roberts@nimrod.wpd.sgi.com (roberts) writes: |> As sendmail currently works, errors are sent to both the sender |> of a message, and to any addresses contained in an Errors-To: |> header. This seems incorrect to me. Shouldn't the address(es) |> contained in any Errors-To: header supercede any other addresses |> for receiving errors? Isn't that what the header was designed for? |> This would seem analogous to the Reply-To: header. Comments please. |> |> - Robert Stephens Errors-to: is not officially sanctioned by the RFCs, which dictate that errors should be reported to the *envelope* From: address (which is supposed to be copied to the Return-path: header during final delivery). So just because sendmail recognizes the Errors-to: header and does something useful with it does not relieve it of its obligation to report errors to the envelope From: address. -- Keith Moore / U.Tenn CS Dept / 107 Ayres Hall / Knoxville TN 37996-1301 Internet: moore@cs.utk.edu BITNET: moore@utkvx
mib@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (03/05/91)
In article <1991Mar2.212126.3567@cs.utk.edu> moore@chili.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) writes:
Errors-to: is not officially sanctioned by the RFCs, which dictate
that errors should be reported to the *envelope* From: address (which
is supposed to be copied to the Return-path: header during final
delivery). So just because sendmail recognizes the Errors-to: header
and does something useful with it does not relieve it of its
obligation to report errors to the envelope From: address.
Ack! No! The errors go to the Sender:, and if that field isn't there,
to the From:.
-mibmoore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) (03/05/91)
In article <MIB.91Mar4160611@wookumz.ai.mit.edu> mib@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >In article <1991Mar2.212126.3567@cs.utk.edu> moore@chili.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) writes: > > Errors-to: is not officially sanctioned by the RFCs, which dictate > that errors should be reported to the *envelope* From: address (which > is supposed to be copied to the Return-path: header during final > delivery). So just because sendmail recognizes the Errors-to: header > and does something useful with it does not relieve it of its > obligation to report errors to the envelope From: address. > >Ack! No! The errors go to the Sender:, and if that field isn't there, >to the From:. > > -mib Okay, I'll elaborate to make myself clearer. RFC821 clearly says that any errors in message transfer should get reported to the argument to the SMTP MAIL FROM command, which is copied to the RFC822 Return-path header on delivery. Of course, this only applies to SMTP transfers. RFC822 does indeed say that errors should be reported to the address in the Sender header, if present. Therefore, if a Sender: address is present in the original message, that address should appear in SMTP's MAIL FROM command instead of the From: address. Similarly, when RFC822 style messages are used with other kinds of mail transport, the Sender address from the header, if present, should be copied to the envelope From: address (e.g. the UUCP "From " line) so that errors will be sent to whoever actually sent the message. MTAs (other than gateways) should probably not even look at headers, and should certainly not send error messages to header addresses. Keith -- -- Keith Moore / U.Tenn CS Dept / 107 Ayres Hall / Knoxville TN 37996-1301 Internet: moore@cs.utk.edu BITNET: moore@utkvx
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (03/05/91)
mib@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >Ack! No! The errors go to the Sender:, and if that field isn't there, >to the From:. You're wrong. See RFC 1123 section 5.3.3. Errors go to the sender, AS SPECIFIED IN THE ENVELOPE. They SHOULD NOT go to any address based on header information. This applies to the internet community, but should hold true for UUCP, as well. BITNET is another story. Here's the text: [...] If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the envelope; see Section 3.6 of RFC-821. The recipient of this notification SHOULD be the address from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). However, if this address is null ("<>"), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a notification. If the address is an explicit source route, it SHOULD be stripped down to its final hop. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (03/06/91)
In article <MIB.91Mar4160611@wookumz.ai.mit.edu> mib@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >In article <1991Mar2.212126.3567@cs.utk.edu> moore@chili.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) writes: > > Errors-to: is not officially sanctioned by the RFCs, which dictate > that errors should be reported to the *envelope* From: address (which > is supposed to be copied to the Return-path: header during final > delivery). So just because sendmail recognizes the Errors-to: header > and does something useful with it does not relieve it of its > obligation to report errors to the envelope From: address. > >Ack! No! The errors go to the Sender:, and if that field isn't there, >to the From:. > > -mib Aack! Aack! No! No! Like the gent said.. errors are supposed to be returned to the ****envelope**** From: address. If you're doing SMTP then that's the address in MAIL FROM:<>. If that address is empty then the error should be dropped on the floor. The RFC doesn't, as I recall, specify where to send errors if the envelope return address has been lost. However that usually only happens when the message is delivered and not a moment before... David -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- "MS-DOS? Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS." --Back To The Future
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (03/07/91)
moore@cs.utk.edu writes: > Errors-to: is not officially sanctioned by the RFCs, which dictate that > errors should be reported to the *envelope* From: address (which is > supposed to be copied to the Return-path: header during final delivery). The problem is that Errors-to: is a very useful thing to have, or at least it's useful to have the same functionality. If I send something to a mailing list, I certainly don't want to see dozens of error messages pouring back into my box about delivery errors to people I've never heard of just because they happen to be on the mailing list. What is the "right way" to set up the headers on mail resent from a mail reflector so that replies go back to the originator (and/or the whole mailing list) but that error messages get sent to the mailing list maintainer? -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (03/07/91)
In article <1991Mar6.172315.1112@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > What is the "right way" to set up the headers on mail resent from a >mail reflector so that replies go back to the originator (and/or the whole >mailing list) but that error messages get sent to the mailing list >maintainer? Try this: From: jblow@deadend.com (Joe Blow) To: thelist@listsite.org (The Mailing List) Subject: Whatever This Is About Reply-To: thelist@listsite.org Errors-To: thelist-request@listsite.org Sender: thelist-request@listsite.org with the "envelope from" field set to "thelist-request", and the "envelope to" fields set to the addresses of the individual recipients. If you want default replies to go to the submitter, omit Reply-To:.
moore@chili.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) (03/07/91)
In article <1991Mar6.172315.1112@phri.nyu.edu>, roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: |> What is the "right way" to set up the headers on mail resent from a |> mail reflector so that replies go back to the originator (and/or the whole |> mailing list) but that error messages get sent to the mailing list |> maintainer? There are several ways to mung list headers so that replies go to the entire list. One way is not to change them at all, if people's mailers are smart enough to be able to reply to all recipients of a message. Another way is to add a Reply-to header, but only if there's not one there already. This allows a list contributor to specify that replies should be sent to him/her rather than the entire list, if he/she supplies his/her own Reply-to address with the message. The error-message address isn't supposed to be determied by headers. You need to set the envelope from address. One way to do this with sendmail is to use the -f command-line option, but you may have to make sure you are running as a "trusted user". Since some non-Internet mail paths lose envelope information, you may find it useful to include an Errors-to header also, but its address should be the same as the envelope from address. -- Keith Moore / U.Tenn CS Dept / 107 Ayres Hall / Knoxville TN 37996-1301 Internet: moore@cs.utk.edu BITNET: moore@utkvx