What I have noticed is most of our Outlook users are confused by the
presence of the word 'bounces' in the From field more than they are
annoyed at the way Outlook deals with the Sender header. When they
see 'bounces' they assume something went wrong. For our uses just
changing that list-bounces address to something less ominous looking
would help.
DallasOn Apr 28, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Neal Groothuis wrote:
It does not appear that Mailman modifies the "Sender:" field to
comply with RFC 2822. The list-bounces address is not the mailbox
of the agent responsible for transmitting the message, as required
in section 3.6.2. The mailbox of the agent responsible for the
transmission of the message would be the list-owner address.Mailman's use the "Sender:" field does not seem to be in line with
the intent of the RFC, nor with current usage of the field. The
example given in the RFC is of a secretary sending an email on
behalf of someone else. Outlook obviously interprets it this way.
Some versions of Thunderbird display both the Sender: and From:
lines to the user, which may prove confusing if the Sender: address
is not a person or an obvious alias for one. Gmail uses it if you
choose a "From" address that is not your gmail.com address.Further, if Mailman is going to change the "Sender:" field, it
should add Resent-* headers, per section 3.6.6 of RFC 2822;
otherwise, the original sender information is lost. The RFC does
say that this is to be used when "users" reintroduce a message into
the system, further providing evidence that automated components of
the mail routing system shouldn't be changing these. (Note that
MTAs don't change the Sender: field, despite being, by their
nature, agents responsible for transmission of messages.)RFC 2369 provides headers which are to be used by mail list
software to identify the various ways of interacting with the list,
and Mailman already adds them. This makes adding this information
to the Sender: field redundant.Based on all of this, Mark's note that there are some MTAs which
bounce to the Sender: address is the only reason that I've seen why
this behavior should continue. Does anyone know what MTAs these
are, or if they're even still in use? If these buggy MTAs are
common, I would suggest that an option be added to the list to
enable this behavior, marked as an accomodation for buggy MTAs, and
defaulting to "off". I'll see if I can scrounge up the time to
submit a patch to accomplish this, if it'll actually get included
in a future release; otherwise I won't waste my time. If these
MTAs are not in use, I stand by my original recommendation to
comment out/remove the two lines responsible for the behavior.At any rate, the "keep patching" suggestion is unhelpful. This is
obviously a problem that many people are running into, enough that
there's a FAQ entry about it. It should be addressed.
Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers% 40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman- developers/dallas%40dreamhost.com
Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py? req=show&file=faq01.027.htp