I'm still undecided about whether to send autoresponse to RFC 822 From
header or the envelope (SMTP MAIL FROM) sender. I'm leaning towards the
later, but then how to distinguish autoresponse from normal bounce? Is
there a standard header I can use (say: X-Auto-Response)?
Regards,
Pascal Damian
On comp.mail.misc, in
<1115603221.889828.205910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"pascaldamian2@yahoo.com" wrote:
> I'm still undecided about whether to send autoresponse to RFC
> 822 From header or the envelope (SMTP MAIL FROM) sender. I'm
> leaning towards the later,
I'd suggest choosing the Reply-To, Return-Path, and envelope
From, in that order.
> but then how to distinguish autoresponse from normal bounce?
> Is there a standard header I can use (say: X-Auto-Response)?
None that I know of. You'd have to search the RFCs.
Seems like that one would work fine. It's meaning is obvious
to anyone who looks at it.
>
> Regards, Pascal Damian
>
Don't even THINK about using A-Rs without first running
your incoming mail through a filter that sends the obvious
spam to the bit bucket (/dev/null in unix/linux).
Otherwise you will just be clogging up the Internet with
mails destined for bogus addresses and end up being
flooded with bounces.
AC
--
Zero-Tolerance for Spam and Trollmail
Pass-list --> Block-List --> Challenge-Response
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
pascaldamian2@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm still undecided about whether to send autoresponse to RFC 822 From
> header or the envelope (SMTP MAIL FROM) sender. I'm leaning towards the
> later, but then how to distinguish autoresponse from normal bounce? Is
> there a standard header I can use (say: X-Auto-Response)?
See RFC 3834: Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3834.html
--
David.
> I'd suggest choosing the Reply-To, Return-Path, and envelope
From, in that order.
What is the difference between Return-Path and envelope From (MAIL
FROM)? I assume you meant "From mail header in the body"?
Thanks,
Pascal Damian
On comp.mail.misc, in
<1115867270.686962.55490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"pascaldamian2@yahoo.com" wrote:
>> I'd suggest choosing the Reply-To, Return-Path, and envelope
>
> From, in that order.
>
> What is the difference between Return-Path and envelope From
> (MAIL FROM)?
Don't know the technical difference, but they are often different
in mail headers, and my experience has been that the Return-Path
is often the right one if they differ.
> I assume you meant "From mail header in the body"?
No. From:, not From
>
> Thanks, Pascal Damian
>
Not for much :-)
AC
On comp.mail.misc, in
Connor" wrote:
> On comp.mail.misc, in
><1115867270.686962.55490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>"pascaldamian2@yahoo.com" wrote:
>
>>> I'd suggest choosing the Reply-To, Return-Path, and envelope
>>
>> From, in that order.
>>
>> What is the difference between Return-Path and envelope From
>> (MAIL FROM)?
>
> Don't know the technical difference, but they are often
> different in mail headers, and my experience has been that the
> Return-Path is often the right one if they differ.
>
>> I assume you meant "From mail header in the body"?
>
> No. From:, not From
>
>
>> Thanks, Pascal Damian
>
>
> Not for much :-)
>
> AC
>
I don't run my own MTA connected directly to the Internet. So
if you are referring to the REAL (IP) envelope From address, I am
not.
You are saying that this is what the Return-Path header
contains?
AC
AFAIK, Return-Path is added/set by the SMTP daemon. So unless there are
another Return-Path in the mail body, or that header is further
manipulated before reaching the final destination (in this case, the
autoresponder), MAIL FROM (enveloper sender) and Return-Path should
contain the same address.
> > I assume you meant "From mail header in the body"?
> No. From:, not From
Yes, that's what I meant too.
There are several "From"s:
1. envelope sender (MAIL FROM sent by SMTP client).
2. RFC 822 From ("From:", which is sent by SMTP client in DATA)
3. mbox message separator (the "From_ line"). This is not part of mail
message.
I (we) meant #2.
On comp.mail.misc, in
<1115898730.859694.45180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"pascaldamian2@yahoo.com" wrote:
>> > I assume you meant "From mail header in the body"?
>
>> No. From:, not From
>
> Yes, that's what I meant too.
>
> There are several "From"s:
>
> 1. envelope sender (MAIL FROM sent by SMTP client).
>
> 2. RFC 822 From ("From:", which is sent by SMTP client in DATA)
>
> 3. mbox message separator (the "From_ line"). This is not part
> of mail message.
There's also the IP envelope header received by the SMTP server,
which cannot be munged by ordinary means. But most of us don't
have any access to these.
>
> I (we) meant #2.
>
That's what I thought at first...
On comp.mail.misc, in
<1115897838.405857.66480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"pascaldamian2@yahoo.com" wrote:
> AFAIK, Return-Path is added/set by the SMTP daemon. So unless
> there are another Return-Path in the mail body, or that header
> is further manipulated before reaching the final destination
> (in this case, the autoresponder), MAIL FROM (enveloper sender)
> and Return-Path should contain the same address.
>
Thanks for clearing that up.
But they certainly _aren't_ always the same in the real world.
AC
This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-4264-1115904311-0001
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg
Beavis writes:
> On comp.mail.misc, in
> <1115898730.859694.45180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "pascaldamian2@yahoo.com" wrote:
>
>
>> There are several "From"s:
>>
>> 1. envelope sender (MAIL FROM sent by SMTP client).
>>
>> 2. RFC 822 From ("From:", which is sent by SMTP client in DATA)
>>
>> 3. mbox message separator (the "From_ line"). This is not part
>> of mail message.
>
> There's also the IP envelope header received by the SMTP server,
> which cannot be munged by ordinary means.
Beavis, there's no such thing as an â=9CIP envelope headerâ=9D. W=
hat you call â=9CIP
envelope headerâ=9D in Beavisland, everyone else in the world calls sim=
ply an
â=9CIP addressâ=9D.
--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-4264-1115904311-0001
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBCg1k3x9p3GYHlUOIRAisJAJ9qqo7KMW/9FXHCqHpCF0Zx2TQ6SgCf SILR
y1Kemf/Td/UDgUpPie7dNb8=
=LAc7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-4264-1115904311-0001--
On 12 May 2005 04:37:18 -0700, pascaldamian2@yahoo.com wrote:
>AFAIK, Return-Path is added/set by the SMTP daemon. So unless there are
>another Return-Path in the mail body, or that header is further
>manipulated before reaching the final destination (in this case, the
>autoresponder), MAIL FROM (enveloper sender) and Return-Path should
>contain the same address.
Beavis (aka Alan Connor) doesn't understand how email works. You do.
Pay him no mind.
Steve Baker
On comp.mail.misc, in
Pascal,
"Steve Baker" is one of the aliases a troll that
infests this group (and many others).
His main alias is "Sam".
I don't read his shit. No matter which of his hundreds
of aliases he is using at the moment, nor which of the
many newsservers he has accounts on he is using at the
moment.
Ever wonder why these losers take such great pains to
hide their identities?
No one gives a shit about them. They don't do anything
but make asses out of themselves on the Usenet.
What would you get if you tracked them down?
Who wants to spend time with a smelly blob of fat with
zits on its zits eating stale pizza while it looks at
cheap porn and tries in vain to find its dick, pausing
every once in a while to post some more shit on the
Usenet?
As for punishing them? Their punishment is being what
they are.
Anything else is just overkill.
AC
--
alanconnor AT earthlink DOT net
Use your real return address or I'll never know you
even tried to mail me. http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:37:53 GMT, Alan Connor
>Pascal,
>
>"Steve Baker" is one of the aliases a troll that
>infests this group (and many others).
>
>His main alias is "Sam".
Pascal, you'll have better luck sending email to bakesph@comcast.net
than zzzzzz@xxx.yyy. ;-) Beavis thinks that everyone who disagrees with
anything he says is the same entity. Sam is an adept programmer who has
written email applications that are being used by high volume email
sites. Beavis, by his own admission, doesn't even admin a mailserver.
He's a clueless wanker whose "admin" experience consists of retrieving
email from his Earthlink account.
But, I have to admit that it's very unlikely that anyone has ever
seen Sam and Steve Baker in the same room together. We've probably
never even been in the same state at the same time.
Steve "Sam" Baker
In article
Alan Connor
>On comp.mail.misc, in
>
>Pascal,
>
>"Steve Baker" is one of the aliases a troll that
>infests this group (and many others).
The only troll that I see infesting this newsgroup is you.
A kooky troll at that.
>His main alias is "Sam".
>
>I don't read his shit.
If you don't, then how come you know what aliases he is using and that
he is a troll?
You fucking retarded trolling piece of shit.
Eat shit and fuck off, no one here is interested in your crap.