Message-Id: <199510032151.RAA23293@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Tue, 3 Oct 1995 22:41:49 +0100
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: What's the Sender header for?
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU, Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 3 Oct 1995 15:46:44 -0400 from Keith Moore
             <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>

On Tue, 3 Oct 1995 15:46:44 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU> said:

>I personally feel that Sender should identify the original human sender,
>and that  mailing lists shouldn't change  it. For them to  do so removes
>the ability of a list recipient to see who actually sent the message.

I'm sorry, but  this doesn't make any sense. The  address of the original
human sender is in the "From:" field. You're seem to say that the mailing
list  manager should  create a  "Sender:" field  with the  same value.  I
really don't see the purpose.

>I realize that  this runs counter to  a lot of existing  practice, but I
>think this comes  closer to the original intent of  RFC 822. I interpret
>the intent of Sender as "the human who caused the message to be sent"; a
>mailing  list   that  automatically  forwards  messages   without  human
>intervention doesn't fit this interpretation.

Well, RFC822 says:

>     4.4.2. SENDER / RESENT-SENDER
>
>        This  field contains  the  authenticated identity  of the  AGENT
>        (person, system or process) that sends the message.

It  seems  pretty  clear  to  me that  "system"  and  "process"  are  not
appropriate words to  address a human being. If the  intent had been what
you  said,  these words  would  not  have  been present.  Clearly  RFC822
intended for computer programs to be  allowed to put a machine mailbox in
that field.

>a) Say  that lists  shouldn't mung  Sender, and  let someone  define new
>   header fields which  are appropriate for lists.  (Arguably the latter
>   work needs to be done anyway.)

And we're back to  the same old stupid problem of having  a 7 figure user
base using "Sender:" for something else, pulling the rug from under their
feet, and alluding to some vague  future work of some other working group
as a possible migration path.

>b) Say that its okay for lists to mung Sender, and recommend a different
>   way for originators  to indicate who actually sent  the message (say,
>   in the first Received header)

I'm  afraid I  don't understand  what problem  you are  trying to  solve.
RFC822  had  a totally  idiotic  feature  allowing  one to  put  multiple
originating  addresses in  the "From:"  field provided  that there  was a
"Sender:" field with a  single address. As far as I  know, this has never
been widely  used and a lot  of mail software breaks  when presented with
such  headers. This  is the  only case  where the  usage of  "Sender:" to
indicate  which of  the original  authors  sent the  message is  actually
necessary.  Personally,  I  would  just deprecate  the  multiple  "From:"
feature.

  Eric