Hi Folks,
I want to find a way to *force* sendmail to include a specified "Return-Path:" header in mail it sends to a remote [E]SMTP server. Specifically:
Return-Path: Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk
rather than the header it computes automatically.
Thanks for any suggestions! Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 21-May-05 Time: 21:05:22 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
(Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk writes:
I want to find a way to *force* sendmail to include a specified "Return-Path:" header in mail it sends to a remote [E]SMTP server.
No, you don't. Return-Path is only added at final delivery.
Specifically:
Return-Path: Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk
rather than the header it computes automatically.
What you actually want is probably the -f option to sendmail (and its workalikes).
On 01-Jun-05 Richard Kettlewell wrote:
(Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk writes:
I want to find a way to *force* sendmail to include a specified "Return-Path:" header in mail it sends to a remote [E]SMTP server.
No, you don't. Return-Path is only added at final delivery.
Specifically:
Return-Path: Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk
rather than the header it computes automatically.
What you actually want is probably the -f option to sendmail (and its workalikes).
Thanks, Richard (and everyone else who responded to this query some time ago). The answer I eventually arrived at was a combination of "-f" as above, and setting up masquerading in sendmail.cf:
1. "Dj" to set my domain name to that of my SMTP provider
2. "DM" to masquerade domain as "nessie.mcc.ac.uk"
(I send mail from user "efh" on my local machine, which is the same as user "efh" aka "Ted.Harding" on the real nessie).
It's all a hall of mirrors, isn't it!
BTW -- I see the Crown Prosecution Service is undertaking a serious investigation into BT's failure to compensate people who've suffered through "dialler" scams (BT say they are not responsible for the transaction and they are under an obligation to pay the provider of the number which was called).
The grounds for investigation are alleged breach of the Proceeds of Crime Act -- presumably in that BT are have been paying the criminals their rake-off, and keeping some back as profit.
Hmmm.
Best wishes to all, Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 01-Jun-05 Time: 11:45:19 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------