[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reply-to:

Richard Kettlewell writes ("Re: Reply-to:"):
> [ lots of stuff about mail, including return paths vs.
>   Reply-To: vs From: ]

Richard Kettlewell's message is entirely correct in every respect.

[rant mode ON]

Note that merely setting the Reply-To WILL NOT WORK (unless your
service provider rewrite your return-path for you - which they may do,
but you should ask them so that you know).

Not only will bounces not go to the right place, but systems are
increasingly REFUSING mail which doesn't have a valid return path.

This is because if your message with a bogus return path can't be
delivered some poor sod of a postmaster somewhere has to deal with it
manually.  Instead it's better if their system refused to accept the
bogus message in the first place.

If this happens it is YOUR FAULT.  I've already had one person mail me
(from their other account) to tell me that MY MAILER was broken
because it refused to accept *THEIR* BOGUS MESSAGE.

[rant mode OFF]

Sorry to shout at you like that, but this is a subject that I feel
quite stronly about.  I have to deal with several problems a day which
are entirely due to people having misconfigured mailers (mostly
bounced bug-acks).  I expect Bruce, running the mailing list, has an
even worse time of it ...

(postmaster@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk, as well as ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk)

Reply to: