Re: What semantics are conveyed

[Yakov Shafranovich <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

wayne wrote:
> The one major objection I had to what was said in the LMAP document is
> all the vague references to "changing semantics".  I don't see how any
> of the LMAP proposals seriously change any semantics, and this phrase
> seems to have been latched onto and blown out of proportion by various
> people.  (Mostly people I don't recognize being involved discussions
> on SPAM-L, NANAE, ASRG, SPF-discuss, etc.)

I believe that your refering to the following quotes:

Section 1:
"This document contains minor updates to the semantics of parts of RFC 2821"

Section 1.1:
"  These proposals change the semantics of the MAIL FROM command
   as defined in RFC 2821, section 3.3. to imply that the domain
   in the source mailbox is also the responsible party for
   sending the message, and thus must be verified.
"

Section 3.1:
"LMAP does not change SMTP, except for changing the semantics of the 
mailbox used in MAIL FROM command."

I suggested to add those comments originally based on something Pete 
Resnick brought up. In particular, I am basing this on section 4.4 of 
RFC 2821:

"  The primary purpose of the Return-path is to designate the address to
   which messages indicating non-delivery or other mail system failures
   are to be sent.
"

Yakov