vesely at tana
Jan 15, 2008, 12:32 AM
Post #1 of 1
(770 views)
Permalink
|
|
Forwarding cases (was: Re: Mail System Terminology)
|
|
David MacQuigg wrote:
> At 03:45 PM 1/14/2008 +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> I think adding one forwarder is sufficiently general.
> If we can handle one, we can handle many.
Differences may arise here and there, though...
>> /
>> ... --> MDA --> Transmitter2 --> / -->Receiver2 --> etc...
>> /
>> Border2
>
> I would change "MDA" to "Receiver1", since MDA means Mail
> Distribution Agent. The MDA really should be at the end
> of the line.
Correct. However, some MDAs allow scripting and thus let users
conditionally forward messages.
>>Someone has configured a forwarding mechanism, supplying a
>>target email address along with any credentials required for
>>fulfilling that task. "The person concerned", as we may call
>>the owner of the target mailbox, is not necessarily the same
>>person as "the perpetrator" who materially carried out the
>>configuration task. Are such terms needed?
>
> I don't understand these two roles, and how they differ from
> the role of Recipient as we have it currently defined.
> Perhaps an example would help.
IMHO, the perpetrator should be the target of DSNs, at least
for failure ones. A related consideration is whether the
mailbox concerned is meant to be transparent w.r.t. senders
or if its address should be concealed. In the latter case,
positive DSNs, if required, should be sent before forwarding.
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=85950879-29e735
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|
