[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice

To: Tony Finch <dot@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:43:08 +0200
Cc: ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-mxcomp.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mxcomp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: NIC France
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040818i

On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 11:16:10AM +0100,
 Tony Finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> wrote 
 a message of 14 lines which said:

> This is completely incorrect. Most alias-forwarders add
> nothing. Some add a non-standard and undocumented header.

Does anyone has a comprehensive list of major MTAs' behaviour?

For instance (just tested):

Postfix 2.1 with ".forward" : adds a Delivered-To (not mentioned in
RFC 2822) but no Resent-something

Follow-Ups:
- Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice
  - From: Stephane Bortzmeyer

References:
- TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice
  - From: Tony Finch

Prev by Date: Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery
Next by Date: Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery
Previous by thread: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice
Next by thread: Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread