Re: mutt and Return-path
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:09:11PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:29:01PM +0100, M. Mueller wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. Currently I am setting From and Return-path to the same values
> > in the default values and the folder-hook values
> >
> > Is Return-path necessary? It seems redundant. Your description doesn't
> > imply that it's necessary. I'll read the RFC. Thanks.
>
> I wouldn't have thought that the MUA should set Return-Path at all; it's
> not its job. A brief glance at the mutt source shows no code that seems
> to set Return-Path. Just leave it out of your .muttrc altogether?
That's what I started out doing.
I sent two messages to my virtual web host email account. The first
did not have Return-path set in .muttrc. The second _did_ have the
Return-path set in .muttrc. Only the second message made it through.
The Return-path value on the receive side was the same as the value
inserted by Mutt. Results suggest Return-path value must be valid.
I am using nullmailer as my MTA. Maybe there is some way to have the MTA
set the Return-path value based on the From value.
It appears that if I add the Return-path value, then nullmailer doesn't
alter what I put in.
What would exim do in this scenario?
Reply to: