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!Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A.ARPA From: Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A.ARPA Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: "Return-Path" vs. "From" Message-ID: <07Feb84.004916.EN0C@CMU-CS-A> Date: Tue, 7-Feb-84 00:49:00 EST Article-I.D.: hou3c.240 Posted: Tue Feb 7 00:49:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 22:14:03 EST Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Lines: 23 To: Nathaniel MishkinIn-Reply-To: "Nathaniel Mishkin's message of 6 Feb 84 15:19-EST" Nat, The return path is the route the mail message took including getting bounced off mars, jupiter and venus. It is not what a mail composer uses to for a return path....it is also quite possible that the reverse path is slower. The return path is only for mail delivery errors. The mail composers should "reply" or "answer" based on the From, Sender and Reply-To fields as specified in RFC822. Admittedly, it is bizzarre that the return-path mailbox specifier is different from the from mailbox specifier but there isn't a quick fix that will 1) get what you want and 2) generate a valid return path. I have plans to fix it but I don't expect it fixed for at least a couple of months. At that point, CMU should have a global distributed name datanase so that anyone on any of our hosts can just say "mail rudy nedved" and it will get to the right mail box. It is all a matter of priorities. -Rudy