Re: bcc - no X-envelope or " for " phrase
- From: "Mike Yates" <elgoog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 May 2005 12:25:18 -0700
Andy David - MVP wrote:
> On 11 May 2005 06:41:37 -0700, "Mike Yates" <elgoog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >No, I don't want to know, as postmaster or administrator.
> >I want the recipient to be able to see WHY he received it, if
required.
> >The "X-Envelope-To " header and the " for " phrase of the "Received"
> >header are essential parts of the "bcc" facility but are being
removed
> >(goodness knows why) by an increasing number of inferior new Mail
> >Transport Agents. I hope Ms Exchange has not joined this trend - the
> >only conceivable motive is collaboration with spamming marketeers.
>
> What can I say? All I can do is refer you to RFC 2822.
Indeed you can, because it refers to RFC2821 for details of headers,
which states:
> When an SMTP server receives a message for delivery or further
> processing, it MUST insert trace ("time stamp" or "Received")
> information at the beginning of the message content, as discussed
in
> section 4.1.1.4.
>
> This line MUST be structured as follows:
>
> - The FROM field, which MUST be supplied in an SMTP environment,
> SHOULD contain both (1) the name of the source host as
presented
> in the EHLO command and (2) an address literal containing the
IP
> address of the source, determined from the TCP connection.
>
> - The ID field MAY contain an "@" as suggested in RFC 822, but
this
> is not required.
>
> - The FOR field MAY contain a list of <path> entries when
multiple
> RCPT commands have been given. This may raise some security
> issues and is usually not desirable; see section 7.2.
>
Which is often misinterpreted as saying that the whole FOR field is
undersirable, but there MUST be a FOR field and it SHOULD contain a
single email address, not multiple.
The "X-Envelope-To" field is an OPTIONAL extention to RFC2822, which
encourages such very useful X- header-lines.
Either of these are used by secondary-POP3 deliverers such as
"fetchmail" or "vpop3" to correctly distribute emails bcc'ed to
internal users after the bcc header-line has been (correctly) removed
on first delivery. When an ISP removes them, all such mail goes to
"postmaster" and IMHO a breach of contract has occurred in that email
is being delivered with insufficient delivery information for a
"useful" service.
My client in this case uses SMTP direct delivery to receive his email
but would find it useful to know to what wrong address was used to bcc
one of his users on a message which has gone to "postmaster". Also,
some of his users have several alternative addresses and need to know
which one has been the object of a bcc spam attack.
Anyway, I'm sure I've seen both in headers from Ms Exchange in the past
- where can one enable them?
Or should it be reported as a bug?
--
Mike Yates
Remote IT support - http://fonehelp.co.uk
.
- References:
- bcc - no X-envelope or " for " phrase
- From: Mike Yates
- Re: bcc - no X-envelope or " for " phrase
- From: Andy David - MVP
- Re: bcc - no X-envelope or " for " phrase
- From: Mike Yates
- Re: bcc - no X-envelope or " for " phrase
- From: Andy David - MVP
- bcc - no X-envelope or " for " phrase
- Prev by Date: Empy mailbox 'not empty'
- Next by Date: Re: Empy mailbox 'not empty'
- Previous by thread: Re: bcc - no X-envelope or " for " phrase
- Next by thread: deliver mail from othe exchange server
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
