Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ulysses!burl!hou3c!MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA From: MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA (Mark Crispin) Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: "Return-Path" vs. "From" Message-ID: <239@hou3c.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Feb-84 16:35:15 EST Article-I.D.: hou3c.239 Posted: Mon Feb 6 16:35:15 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 22:13:06 EST Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Lines: 20 To: Mishkin@YALE.ARPA Cc: Ellis@YALE.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Nathaniel Mishkin" of Mon 6 Feb 84 12:36:45-PST Postal-Address: 725 Mariposa Ave. #103; Mountain View, CA 94041 Phone: (415) 497-1407 (Stanford); (415) 968-1052 (residence) I have seen the question of replying to the Return-Path come up zillions of times. Why won't people read RFC 821 and 822 instead of asking this question (or complaining about software which does not reply to the Return-Path)? You *never* reply to the Return-Path. The Return-Path is merely the "return address" for a message if it is undeliverable. It may be the sender of the message. It may be the author of the message. It may be the reply address of the message. It may be the mailer process at the sending site. It may be null. It may be none of these. There is NO relationship between the Return-Path and any reply address. The fact that actual usage patterns very often establish such a relationship is irrelevant. -- Mark -- -------