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!Craig.Everhart@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
From: Craig.Everhart@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: "Return-Path" vs. "From"
Message-ID: <07Feb84.140020.RD00@CMU-CS-A>
Date: Tue, 7-Feb-84 14:00:00 EST
Article-I.D.: CMU-CS-A.07Feb84.140020.RD00
Posted: Tue Feb  7 14:00:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 22:32:27 EST
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Reply-To: Rdmail@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
Lines: 17
To: Nathaniel Mishkin 
In-Reply-To: "Nathaniel Mishkin's message of 6 Feb 84 15:19-EST"

It just doesn't matter, period, that the two are different.  I don't care what
you think of the aesthetics of each individual field--whether it was a design
choice that those two fields look as they do, or (as is the case) that their
current appearance is an accident of history.  That's none of your business!
Obviously, your mailer should NEVER use the Return-Path: field in composing
replies (except for error notification).  Both addresses work.  I could even
argue that using a Return-Path identifier that doesn't look like a name is a
good idea, precisely to discourage people from using it for ordinary replies.

A local (CMU-CS-A) mail system user might have some cause to complain about
the aesthetics of the outgoing fields.  However, you aren't such, and have no
business making that complaint.

		Craig Everhart