|
Email forwarding consists of the operation of re-sending an email message delivered to one email address on to another email address. Users and administrators of email systems use the same term when speaking of both server-based and client-based forwarding. Email forwarding can also redirect mail going to one address and send it to one or several other addresses. Vice versa, email items going to several different addresses can converge via forwarding to end up in a single address in-box.
Server-based forwardingThe domain name (the part appearing to the right of @ in an email address) defines the target server[1] for that class of addresses. That server can deliver a message to a user's mailbox and/or send it forward. ~/.forward files (see below) provide a typical example of the implementation of server-based forwarding. Email administrators sometimes use the term redirection as a synonym for server-based email-forwarding. Uses of server-based forwarding
Forwarding versus remailingPlain message-forwarding changes the envelope recipient(s) and leaves the envelope sender field untouched. The "envelope sender" field does not equate to the From header which Email client software usually displays: it represents a field used in the early stages of the SMTP protocol, and subsequently saved as the Return-Path header. This field holds the address to which mail-systems must send bounce messages — reporting delivery-failure (or success) — if any. By contrast, the terms remailing or redistribution can sometimes mean re-sending the message and also rewriting the "envelope sender" field. Electronic mailing lists furnish a typical example. Authors submit messages to a reflector that performs remailing to each list address. That way, bounce messages (which report a failure delivering a message to any list- subscriber) will not reach the author of a message. However, annoying misconfigured vacation autoreplies do reach authors. Typically, plain message-forwarding does alias-expansion, while remailing serves for mailing-lists.[2] In the Sender Policy Framework (SPF), the domain-name in the envelope sender remains subject to policy restrictions. Therefore, SPF generally disallows plain message-forwarding. Intra domain redirection complies with SPF as long as the relevant servers share a consistent configuration. Mail servers that practise inter-domain message-forwarding may break SPF even if they don't implement SPF themselves, i.e. they neither apply SPF checks nor publish SPF records.[3] Sender Rewriting Scheme provides for a generic forwarding mechanism compatible with SPF. Client-based forwardingAutomated client-based forwardingClient forwarding can take place automatically using a non-interactive client such as a mail retrieval agent. Although the retrieval agent uses a client protocol, this forwarding resembles server forwarding in that it keeps the same message-identity. Concerns about the envelope-sender apply.[3] Manual client-based forwardingAn end-user can manually forward a message using an Email client. Forwarding inline quotes the message below the main text of the new message, and preserves original attachments. Forwarding as attachment prepares a MIME attachment that contains the full original message, including all headers and any attachment. Note that including all the headers discloses much information about the message, such as the servers that transmitted it and any client-tag added on the mailbox. This kind of forwarding actually constitutes a remailing from the points of view of the envelope-sender and of the recipient(s). The message identity also changes. Historical development of email forwardingRFC 821, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, by Jonathan B. Postel in 1982, provided for a forward-path for each recipient, in the form of, for example,
S: RCPT TO:<Postel@USC-ISI.ARPA>
R: 251 User not local; will forward to <Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
The concept at that time envisaged the elements of the forward-path (source route) moving to the return-path (envelope sender) as a message got relayed from one SMTP server to another. Even if the system discouraged the use of source-routing,[4] dynamically building the return-path implied that the "envelope sender" information could not remain in its original form during forwarding. Thus RFC 821 did not originally allow plain message-forwarding. The introduction of the MX record[5] made source-routing unnecessary. In 1989, RFC 1123 recommended accepting source-routing only for backward-compatibility. At that point, plain message forwarding[3] became the recommended action for alias-expansion. In 2001, RFC 2821 mentioned that "systems may remove the return path and rebuild [it] as needed", taking into consideration that not doing so might inadvertently disclose sensitive information.[6] However, it still encourages plain message-forwarding for alias-expansion.
|
This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
Mercedes Car
This site monitored by SitePinger.net