[Mimedefang] GMail (was Re: stripping Received headers based on authentication)

[Les Mikesell]

On 2/17/2010 10:07 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> How is running pine on a remote machine any different than running a web
>> interface to mail, perhaps on that same remote machine?
>
> Because running pine over SSH is not a "gateway" as defined in RFC
> 5321, whereas running a Webmail server that accepts email using some
> kind of transport (HTTP or HTTPS) and then delivers it using SMTP *is*
> a gateway as defined in RFC 5321.

Sorry, but a web interface isn't an email gateway.  The application 
running email isn't where the web interface displays it any more than it 
would be if you display thunderbird in a remote X session.

> Maybe you think it's splitting hairs, but we have to abide by the RFC,
> which is abundantly clear.

But the RFC says nothing about remote displays and remote application 
acccess, whether provided by ssh, X, or http(s).  My web browser knows 
nothing about mail and there is no gatewaying of email going on between 
it and gmail - it just displays what the remote app wants it to. Any 
concept of 'mail' starts on the server side - and is tied to the login 
on that remote system.  Yes, you could pervert this to originate mail 
with a remote program, but you could do the same over ssh/pine (or a 
serial port for that matter), equally tied to your credentials on the 
remote host where the mail activity actually happens.

I wouldn't object to showing the remote display's IP address in a header 
so I'm not arguing against that, but it is somewhat imaginative to think 
a web browser is the other half of an email gateway so the RFC 
requirement would apply.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com