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 CrispinCc: 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).