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 Mishkin 
In-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