Re: Small comment on 3028bis redirect

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006, Ned Freed <[e-mail]> said:

> >> I'm reading over the redirect action, and it makes reference to the
> >> behavior of "a .forward file using sendmail under UNIX."
> >
> >> Could the intended behavior be made explicit? I'd to know if the
> >> envelope sender on the new outgoing message should be the Sieve
> >> recipient or the original sender.
> >
> > This is implementation and situation dependent. There are reasons why the
> > MAIL FROM address may need to change and reasons why it may need to stay
> > the same.
> >
> > One factor is whether or not sieve acts before, during, or after final
> > delivery. If actions are taken prior to final delivery there's a good
> > argument to be made that redirect is equivalent to an MTA forward and
> > the MAIL FROM address and envelope id should not change. If, OTOH, redirect
> > is done client-side after final delivery there's a good argument to be made
> > that you're dealing with  a new submission to the transfer system and the
> > message needs to have a new MAIL FROM and envelope id.

> After some more searching (your keywords "MTA foward" were golden) I found
> this early discussion (Google archive because gmane is broken right now)

> http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:2SK_eTCQbMYJ:blog.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.mta-filters/month%3D19970701+mta+forwarding&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10&client=firefox-a

> Basically the same thing as you just wrote above was also used to clarify
> the same question back in 1997. Perhaps the clarifying text should be
> inserted into the draft, using keyword MAY to explain how the different
> environment Sieve runs in MAY effect the redirect action.

Sounds good to me.

				Ned