Sender: headers again
2006-08-22 20:03![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fanfhttp://fanf.livejournal.com/44733.html
I just found out an explanation for Outlook's irritating behaviour that I was working around back in January. It turns out that Sendmail has never followed the standard's requirements for the Sender: header (it never adds or fixes it), so the developers of Outlook assumed that you would only see a Sender: header when the message had been transmitted via a mailing list. This makes the "from [list] on behalf of [author]" wording look relatively sensible. However, they should have used the bloody List-ID: which is supposed to be used for exactly this kind of thing.
What is worse is that Exim is out on a limb in this respect. Postfix used to follow the standard but was changed in 2000 to be bug-compatible with Sendmail. This is very irritating, because the standard behaviour is much more useful. Grr.
I just found out an explanation for Outlook's irritating behaviour that I was working around back in January. It turns out that Sendmail has never followed the standard's requirements for the Sender: header (it never adds or fixes it), so the developers of Outlook assumed that you would only see a Sender: header when the message had been transmitted via a mailing list. This makes the "from [list] on behalf of [author]" wording look relatively sensible. However, they should have used the bloody List-ID: which is supposed to be used for exactly this kind of thing.
What is worse is that Exim is out on a limb in this respect. Postfix used to follow the standard but was changed in 2000 to be bug-compatible with Sendmail. This is very irritating, because the standard behaviour is much more useful. Grr.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 07:35 (UTC)The fact that the two "From"s are orthogonal ought to mean be good, but I'm not so sure it hasn't helped to allow such problems (the orthogonality means that the MUA doesn't show SRS unless asked, but if there had been some relationship the developers might have seen that they had broken something?)