On Tue, 1 Sep, 2020 at 09:59, Timo Sirainen <timo@sirainen.com> wrote:
On 1. Sep 2020, at 6.24, TACHIBANA Masashi <tachibana@qualitia.co.jp> wrote:
Hi,
Is this expected or not?
From: user1@fuga.example.com <user1@example.com> To: user2@hoge.example.com <user2@example.com> ↓ a uid fetch 43055 (envelope)
- 1860 FETCH (UID 43055 ENVELOPE ("Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:52:59 +0900" "test1" ((NIL NIL "user1" "fuga.example.com")) ((NIL NIL "user1" "fuga.example.com")) ((NIL NIL "user1" "fuga.example.com")) ((NIL NIL "user2" "hoge.example.com")) NIL NIL NIL "<WLXvFmpAZFNeQbPPITjRwimDyamnBm1@test>"))
This is an invalid email address, so it's neither correct nor incorrect to have this output. But this reminded me that I was going to discuss about this with other IETF people. Lets see what others think: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/sqRTdsV_DGBhHu2ghdCDFo_pM8Q/
While it is an invalid email address, in the exact same vein as <https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/2020-August/119658.html> Dovecot's approach is unhelpful here, and means MUAs must download complete headers rather than reply on envelope address structures. In fact, unlike in the linked case this example this is actually a security vulnerability: http://mailspolit.com/
As a MUA maintainer, I'd really like to see Dovecot take a more proactive approach to sending useful values in envelope address structure, so we don't have to download headers all the time.
From: "user1@fuga.example.com" <user1@example.com> To: "user2@hoge.example.com" <user2@example.com> ↓ a uid fetch 43056 (envelope)
- 1861 FETCH (UID 43056 ENVELOPE ("Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:53:59 +0900" "test1" (("user1@fuga.example.com" NIL "user1" "example.com")) (("user1@fuga.example.com" NIL "user1" "example.com")) (("user1@fuga.example.com" NIL "user1" "example.com")) (("user2@hoge.example.com" NIL "user2" "example.com")) NIL NIL NIL "<WLXvFmpAZFNeQbPPITjRwimDyamnBm2@test>"))
This is a valid email address, and ENVELOPE reply is correct.
Agreed.
//Mike
-- Michael Gratton. <https://mjog.vee.net>