dovecot - Jul 2009 - sieve redirect action

Hello Stephan,

First of all, thank you for dovecot-sieve implementation.

I see that you are adding X-Sieve header to all outgoing e-mail in
cmd-redirect.c

/* Prepend sieve version header (should not affect signatures) */
rfc2822_header_field_write(f, "X-Sieve", SIEVE_IMPLEMENTATION);

How do you look at adding one more header, for example X-Sieve-Forward-From:

Now, when redirect action is in use - mail forwards using sendmail command line
interface. The problem that there is no suitable way to know which user's
script has generate redirect. Received: header may contain envelope receiver but
this is valid if only 1 "rcpt to:" command was specified on SMTP
session.
This invokes problem when forwarding mail to non-local domains, breaking such
things like SPF. I'd like to setup SRS for fixing this, but I don't know
sender("sieve local user") mail. Adding one header with valid local
user e-mail address will fix this.
Google add 2 headers for this -  X-Forwarded-To: and X-Forwarded-For: .

What do you think about this ?

Nikita Koshikov schreef:
> Hello Stephan,
> 
> First of all, thank you for dovecot-sieve implementation.
> 
> I see that you are adding X-Sieve header to all outgoing e-mail in
cmd-redirect.c
> 
> /* Prepend sieve version header (should not affect signatures) */
> rfc2822_header_field_write(f, "X-Sieve", SIEVE_IMPLEMENTATION);
> 
> How do you look at adding one more header, for example
X-Sieve-Forward-From:
> 
> Now, when redirect action is in use - mail forwards using sendmail command
line interface. The problem that there is no suitable way to know which
user's script has generate redirect. Received: header may contain envelope
receiver but this is valid if only 1 "rcpt to:" command was specified
on SMTP session.
> This invokes problem when forwarding mail to non-local domains, breaking
such things like SPF. I'd like to setup SRS for fixing this, but I don't
know sender("sieve local user") mail. Adding one header with valid
local user e-mail address will fix this.
> Google add 2 headers for this -  X-Forwarded-To: and X-Forwarded-For: .
> 
> What do you think about this ? 
I have no objection, but then again my experience on this subject is 
pretty bleak. Does anyone else have comments?

Regards,

-- 
Stephan Bosch
stephan at rename-it.nl