Questions about synthesize_received_header()

I was looking at this function, and was wondering if
the (MimeDefang) comment was necessary... or perhaps
making it read "via MimeDefang" instead (as per
RFC-822).

Also, the "for" information only specifies the
first recipient.

I'm wondering if that's optimal, or if it might seem
misleading
at times (we should at least indicate if there were other
recipients, right?).

Unfortunately, the syntax of Received: lines doesn't give
much
wiggle room...

-Philip

_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in
the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID.  You may ignore it.

Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpengu
in.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefanglists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mime
defang

Philip Prindeville wrote:

> I was looking at this function, and was wondering if
> the (MimeDefang) comment was necessary... or perhaps
> making it read "via MimeDefang" instead (as
per RFC-822).

I suppose... it's a small point; not sure it's worth
changing.

> Also, the "for" information only specifies
the first recipient.

Not quite.  If there's more than one recipient, we don't add
the "for"
clause.  Otherwise, we add it.  That's how Sendmail works,
and it's
the only safe way to avoid leaking Bcc: information.

--
David.
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in
the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID.  You may ignore it.

Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpengu
in.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefanglists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mime
defang

On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 02:40:54PM -0500, David F. Skoll
wrote:
> Philip Prindeville wrote:
> 
> > I was looking at this function, and was wondering
if
> > the (MimeDefang) comment was necessary... or
perhaps
> > making it read "via MimeDefang" instead
(as per RFC-822).
> 
> I suppose... it's a small point; not sure it's worth
changing.

Probably the main purpose is that it's parsable by
Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Metadata::Received::parse_recei
ved_headers()

As such, it's not really worth changing a lot. I'm pretty
certain the
current generated header is matched by that code.

A second reason might be to identify mails that are resent
by
MIMEDefang itself. Since the synthesized header does
contain
"(MIMEDefang)" I suppose that's taken care of.

-- 
Jan-Pieter Cornet <johnpcxs4all.nl>
!! Disclamer: The addressee of this email is not the
intended recipient. !!
!! This is only a test of the echelon and data retention
systems. Please !!
!! archive this message indefinitely to allow verification
of the logs.  !!
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in
the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID.  You may ignore it.

Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpengu
in.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefanglists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mime
defang