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!floyd!harpo!ulysses!burl!hou3c!Mishkin@YALE.ARPA
From: Mishkin@YALE.ARPA (Nathaniel Mishkin)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: "Return-Path" vs. "From"
Message-ID: <248@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Feb-84 10:26:04 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.248
Posted: Thu Feb  9 10:26:04 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 07:20:53 EST
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Lines: 18
To: Mark Crispin 
Cc: Ellis@YALE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Mark Crispin , Tue 7 Feb 84 12:29:30-PST


    It isn't totally unreasonable for the From or Reply fields to
    be a "meaningful" address, such as "Mark.Crispin@Stanford" (which
    we fully intend to support in the near future) while the
    "Return-Path" would be a "machine" address incorporating a login
    name and physical machine, such as "MRC@SU-SCORE".
    
I completely agree with the goal of using "logical" names.  However,
this doesn't make a virtue out of the strangeness of the "Return-Path".
If you want the functionality you say (i.e. that the recipient can
see both the user ID and the logical name of the sender), it seems
like you should use a "Sender" line and not rely on the behavior of
the "Return-Path" (whose contents are presumably not under the control
of the person/mailsystem that decides that presenting both the user
ID and the logical name is a good idea).