[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       tmda-workers
Subject:    Re: ADDED_HEADERS_CLIENT
From:       Mark Horn <mark-dated-1039038981.7c8106 () hornclan ! com>
Date:       2002-11-27 21:56:20
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 02:06:24PM -0700, Gre7g Luterman wrote:
>ADDED_HEADERS_CLIENT = { "X-Primary-Address": "%s@%s" % \
>  (Util.getusername(), Util.gethostname()) }
>
>That will encourage the use of the X-Primary-Address header.
>
>Note that the X-Primary-Address header does not actually have to be 
>correct.  It just has to be unique and consistent (heck it could be a 
>number based on our crypt_key's).

Since TMDA can do "X-TMDA: bare" this means that TMDA *should* be able
to determine the untagged address without having to resort to asking the
host what the username and hostname is.  There's two reasons that I don't
think we should ask the underlying host what the username/hostname is:

1) Email addresses don't always correspond to username@hostname.
   And in some cases, it's explicitly set up (for security purposes)
   so that the user's email address does NOT correspond to their loginid.

2) How would you handle this in a situation with something like the plugin
   for squirrelmail?  That plugin works by giving group access to the
   user's .tmda/* but it doesn't actually run as the user who's using it.
   (Bill Duncan can your correct me?)

Basically, since TMDA knows the user's untagged address, it should be able
to just use it by default... assuming that we want to set up a default.

$.02.  Thoughts?
- Mark
_________________________________________________
tmda-workers mailing list (tmda-workers@tmda.net)
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]