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!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!hou3c!Mishkin@YALE.ARPA From: Mishkin@YALE.ARPA Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: "Return-Path" vs. "From" Message-ID: <241@hou3c.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Feb-84 23:05:26 EST Article-I.D.: hou3c.241 Posted: Mon Feb 6 23:05:26 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 22:32:09 EST Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Lines: 27 To: Mark CrispinCc: Ellis@YALE.ARPA In-Reply-To: Mark Crispin , Mon 6 Feb 84 13:35:15-PST 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)? I am perfectly well aware of the fact that the Return-Path CAN be different from the From and that there are good reasons why it sometimes is. And I'm not talking about what address should be used for replies. What I want to know is WHY in the obvious cases (like the one I showed) IS it different. Given that the sender of a message generally does not (manually) specify the contents of either the Return-Path or From, why do the two fields end up being different in the way they are in the example I gave? I am hardpressed to believe that it is a desirable, intentional, or rational feature that the 2 should be different in the trivial case. I find it hard to believe that whoever wrote the software that caused the behavior I saw considers the difference anything less than a misfeature, if not an outright bug. What I'm really talking about here is the confusion factor: seeing a Return-Path and From that do not agree might lead one to believe that there is some significance in the difference -- otherwise, why would they be presented differently?