At 04:10 PM 5/5/97 -0400, Vince Sabio wrote:
>** Sometime around 11:31 -0400 5/3/97, Keith Moore said:
>>> I have some poor sysadmin in India who has sendmail set up to bounce
>>> messages back to the "From:" address -- not the "Sender" or "Errors-To"
>>> address, if one is present.
>>Bouncing to either the Sender or the Errors-To address is also wrong.
>>Mail bounces go to the envelope return-path, period.
>As I understand it:
>1. Return-path is not always provided (e.g., LISTSERV and ListProc use
Actually, if present, it's provided locally at delivery. From RFC822:
This field is added by the final transport system that
delivers the message to its recipient. The field is intended
to contain definitive information about the address and route
back to the message's originator.
Note: The "Reply-To" field is added by the originator and
serves to direct replies, whereas the "Return-Path"
field is used to identify a path back to the origina-
While the syntax indicates that a route specification is
optional, every attempt should be made to provide that infor-
mation in this field.
Thus it has nothing to do with what various MLMs use to identify themselves
in RFC822 headers.
Note, however, the key word "envelope" that Keith used. This is discussed
in RFC1123; check out 5.3.3 and 5.3.6 there, in particular. Also, I find it
surprising that 5.3.7(E) is a SHOULD rather than a MUST (this talks about