🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: demon.ip.developers
Article #1420

Re: Reverse Path line and the current PUNT software.

#1420
From: Alan Staniforth
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 00:00
52 lines
2721 bytes
In article <19951113.163343.76@compton.demon.co.uk>,
tom@compton.demon.co.uk (Tom Hughes) wrote:

[...]
> I presume Demon still pass on any source route that already existed, but
> don't add any of their own... Maybe not though.
[...]
> Does anyone know if this is still happening with the new software
> on the punts? Only this was actually preventing Archimedes KA9Q
> users from using mail forwarding, as it can't cope with the source
> routed address.

I am fairly sure that they no longer do.  AddMail always shows the 
source route in one of its monitor windows and until the last two or 
three days you would usually see at least one hostname to the left of 
the colon.  The current software must be dropping this information (or 
not deriving it.)

While I can see the reasoning, couldn't a case be made that 1123's 
strictures seem to apply to the RCPT TO: command only and that a 
source path supplied in the MAIL FROM: ought to be preserved and 
forwarded for compatibility, in case older software that expects a 
reverse path to be available is encountered down stream.

The change isn't causing me any problems (in fact it has removed a 
very minor one) but I was a little curious.  Having followed a kind 
pointer by aDe to draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-00.txt I find myself a 
little more puzzled.  This seems to be working mostly from 821, not 
1123 and in section 4.4 says:

  (i)  a gateway from SMTP->elsewhere SHOULD insert a return-path
  header, unless it is known that the "elsewhere" transport
  also uses Internet domain addresses and maintains the
  envelope sender address separately.

and then:

  -------------------------------------------------------------
  
     Example of Return Path and Received Time Stamps
  
  Return-Path: <@GHI.ARPA,@DEF.ARPA,@ABC.ARPA:JOE@ABC.ARPA>   

which appears to be an explicit violation of the section 5.2.19 which 
aDe quoted as it is placing a source path in an RFC 822 header.

-Alan.

-- 
Alan Staniforth ** alan@bones.demon.co.uk ** alan_s@cix.compulink.co.uk
"Meum est propositum/In taberna mori,/Ut sint vina proxima/Morientis ori."
       -- Anon.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <ACCD62629668A0D9F@bones.demon.co.uk>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <v02140404accc14e4adb2@[158.152.8.10]> <XuD6emB5W2pwEAgT@turnpike.com> <19951113.163343.76@compton.demon.co.uk>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10bb05,f6ce49604897607c
X-Google-Attributes: gid10bb05,public
From: alan@bones.demon.co.uk (Alan Staniforth)
Subject: Re: Reverse Path line and the current PUNT software.
Date: 1995/11/13
Message-ID: <ACCD62629668A0D9F@bones.demon.co.uk>
X-Deja-AN: 119294282
x-nntp-posting-host: bones.demon.co.uk
references: <v02140404accc14e4adb2@[158.152.8.10]> <XuD6emB5W2pwEAgT@turnpike.com> <19951113.163343.76@compton.demon.co.uk>
organization: Erehwon, Inc.
newsgroups: demon.ip.developers