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!MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA From: MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA (Mark Crispin) Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: "Return-Path" vs. "From" Message-ID: <251@hou3c.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-Feb-84 15:34:40 EST Article-I.D.: hou3c.251 Posted: Thu Feb 9 15:34:40 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 07:21:27 EST Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Lines: 15 To: Ellis@YALE.ARPA Cc: Mishkin@YALE.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "John R Ellis" of Thu 9 Feb 84 12:17:26-PST Postal-Address: 725 Mariposa Ave. #103; Mountain View, CA 94041 Phone: (415) 497-1407 (Stanford); (415) 968-1052 (residence) John - Good point. However, it does not mean that it is correct for a mailsystem's Reply command to use the Return-Path. The correct behavior is to give an error message, and let the human user figure out that maybe the information in the Return-Path is useful. I am sick and tired of people claiming it should be done automatically - all that would accomplish is an ad hoc modification to the standard. That'll make the standard even more worthless than it already is. -- Mark -- -------