Summary: | MDN response should be sent to reply-to address | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Unmaintained] kmail | Reporter: | Andreas Troschka <at.lists> |
Component: | MDN | Assignee: | kdepim bugs <kdepim-bugs> |
Status: | RESOLVED UNMAINTAINED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | bjoern, kdebug, swsolutions |
Priority: | NOR | Keywords: | triaged |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Platform: | unspecified | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
Sentry Crash Report: |
Description
Andreas Troschka
2005-06-01 01:49:57 UTC
hm in r827xxx the disposition notification gets sent to the reply-to address... i think this is right? It is basically correct. Therefore we have to pay attention to the situation where the sender doesn't specify any Reply-To: address. In this case the answering MUA can't find a Reply-To: field in the header so it usually gets the From: address to send the MDN response. This is inherently wrong as possible cause of SPAM due to the fact the From: field is freely editable by the sender. So a better choice, in case of missing Reply-To: address, is to get the address from the Returnpath: field. Be it clear, the use of the Return-Path: field doesn't grant a correct delivery of the MDN response and in particular not in the issue presented with this bug. This because that address indicates the originating *outbound* address and not the inbound one. Therefore, a better implementation of the MDN process has to be made to get this "service" to work correctly and with the minimum SPAM risks. i dont know enough to say something about this bug, so ill add a kmail dev as cc. i hope its ok. Thank you for taking the time to file a bug report. KMail2 was released in 2011, and the entire code base went through significant changes. We are currently in the process of porting to Qt5 and KF5. It is unlikely that these bugs are still valid in KMail2. We welcome you to try out KMail 2 with the KDE 4.14 release and give your feedback. |