Re: Small comment on 3028bis redirect

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 08:59 -0700, Aaron Stone wrote:
> 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.

it is the original sender.  after all, it wouldn't do much good to send
the error report to the recipient, since he has forwarding set up :-)
the alternative would have to be the local postmaster, but that would be
a novel way of handling it, and novel solutions usually come back to
bite you.

> And uh, since it seems somewhat obvious now that I think about it that
> it cannot be the original sender, who is not likely to be vouched for by
> the relaying MTA if, say, there's an SPF query... probably best to
> clarify the language in that paragraph in section 4.2 of 3028bis.

that's why SPF is broken and never will be a standard.

I agree the behaviour needs to be stated explicitly.
-- 
Kjetil T.