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!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!ka
From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: envelope information
Message-ID: <313@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Feb-84 23:49:37 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.313
Posted: Mon Feb 20 23:49:37 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Feb-84 08:20:35 EST
References: <308@hou3c.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 21

It seems to me that the controversy over what belongs in the envelope
and stuff that "has to be in the header for the benefit of networks
that don't have any concept of 'envelope' information" is due to
confusion over what RFC 822 is attempting to define.

If RFC 822 is supposed to define a general purpose, network independent
standard for mail transfer, then it should be complete.  This implies
that a "Currently-To:" field should be added to it so that a piece of
mail can be sent to another system without providing a destination
separately.

A lower level protocal must be used underneath RFC 822 to actually
transfer the mail.  In the case of the ARPANET, that lower level
transport could remove the "Return-Path:" and "Currently-To:" fields
from the header and transmit them in the envelope.  The receiving
process would then restore the values to the header.

Is there any explanation (other than confusion on the part of the
writers about what they were trying to do) why RFC 822 contains
"Return-Path:" but not "Currently-To:"?
  				Kenneth Almquist