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