You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 15, 2024. It is now read-only.
there are non-user-facing headers that are actionable during reply (e.g. that shift the behavior of the MUA somehow), like Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To. (and maybe Sender and Return-Path) ?
I worry that if we don't call these out specifically, then we are vulnerable to (at least) recipient-modification attacks.
I'm not sure how to characterize or exhaustively enumerate all such headers, or where in the spec such a mention belongs. The concept is subtly different from user-facing headers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've included Reply-To and Followup-To as user-facing headers (because they are actually user-facing). But i am still concerned that there may be other headers that affect how replies are done but aren't actually user-facing, and we might want to handle them differently.
dkg
changed the title
dealing with Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To
dealing with headers that affect how a message is replied to or bounced
Nov 4, 2019
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
there are non-user-facing headers that are actionable during reply (e.g. that shift the behavior of the MUA somehow), like
Reply-To
andMail-Followup-To
. (and maybeSender
andReturn-Path
) ?I worry that if we don't call these out specifically, then we are vulnerable to (at least) recipient-modification attacks.
I'm not sure how to characterize or exhaustively enumerate all such headers, or where in the spec such a mention belongs. The concept is subtly different from user-facing headers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: