Hello? (was Re: Adding Envelope Headers?)

[John Rudd]

Julian,

The message isn't answerable by anyone but you -- it's a reply to your
message about how putting "Envelope-To" headers into a message would be
a bad idea (my response says that it's bad in the general cause, but not
in some specific cases, which would be based upon the MTA, and should
therefore be selectable by the sysadmin running mailscanner).

a) doesn't apply because I'm not reporting a problem, I'm refuting an
assertion of yours,

and

b) doesn't apply because you're the only one being addressed, really.
That "other's can't answer because they don't know" isn't relevant.


John


Julian Field wrote:
>
> Sorry, haven't got time to respond to everyone. I suggest the silence means
> no-one else either
> a) has enough info from you to work out what the problem is,
> or
> b) doesn't know.
>
> At 21:41 18/02/2004, you wrote:
> >John Rudd wrote:
> > >
> > > John Rudd wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Julian Field wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > At 14:00 13/02/2004, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >X-Envelope-To:
> > > >
> > > > > I am of the opinion that ...
> > > > > putting in the envelope recipient is a bad idea.
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > When you know that the MTA will do the right thing, it's not "a bad
> > > > idea".  And for some MTA's, it's definitely "the right idea".
> > >
> > > So, does the lack of response to my two messages indicate they fell on
> > > deaf ears?  Are my arguments unconvincing?
> >
> >
> >
> >*tap*tap*tap* Is this thing on?
> >
> >Beuller?  Beuller?