Re: Email address VERP problems (was RE: Does a call to a language handler provide a context/session, and somewhere to keep session data? - Mailing list pgsql-general
From
Subject
Re: Email address VERP problems (was RE: Does a call to a language handler provide a context/session, and somewhere to keep session data?
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2016 6:18 AM To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> Cc: David Bennett <davidb@pfxcorp.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Email address VERP problems (was RE: [GENERAL] Does a call to a language handler provide a context/session, and somewhere to keep session data?
David Bennett wrote: > > owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Herrera > > > On that subject. I noticed that Outlook seems to add the "return > > path" > > addresses (sometimes called bounce address or envelope sender) to the > > CC header, which sets a new record in the stupidity scale. Since we > > use VERP, each message gets a different return path address, so with > > each reply you make, Outlook adds a new address to the CC. > > Interesting. I use a lot of mailing lists and I've not run across one > actually using VERP before. Is it becoming more frequent?
Not sure if it's becoming more frequent -- I only manage *this* list server and we enabled VERP several years ago. I thought it was common practice ... the idea of manually managing addresses that bounce seems completely outdated now.
It's been frequent for quite some time.
> I checked the headers. It seems this list is using a VERP address for both > the Return-path and the Reply-To, and only the Sender identifies the list > directly.
I'm pretty sure our list server is not setting the VERP address in Reply-To. That would be insane, wouldn't it. We don't touch the Reply-To header at all. Maybe some other program along the way modifies the email before Outlook gets it?
Yeah, same here.
However, if you look at the thread, it seems the VERP address was added to the *original email*. In the To field. Perhaps that's what confused the MUA into adding *another* VERP address on the reply?
To me it look slike this was definitely done by the MTA or MUA at pfxcorp.com. The archived copy (which is delivered the exact same way as a general email, it doesn't have any shortcut) does not contain this address naywhere, it was only used as an envelope sender. Possibly it got confused by the other VERP address in the initial email, which AFAICT is a manual mistake.
That’s possible. We have a non-standard mail server (as you can see from the headers). I’ll check.
