Re: mutt and Return-path
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:07:05PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:40:02PM +0100, Jan Minar wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:41:30AM -0500, Mike Mueller wrote:
> > > Is there significance to the Return-path value?
> >
> > Basically, it tells the addressee ``Don't reply to the address in the
> > `From:' field, but to this one/these, please.''
> >
> > See [1]RFC 822, section 4.4.3 for details.
>
> RFC 822 does not say that. It says that Return-Path "is intended to
> identify a path back to the originator of the message", and in the next
> sentence explicitly differentiates this from Reply-To. Return-Path is
> more to indicate where bounces would go (although in practice you'd use
> the SMTP envelope sender instead).
Which is where Return-Path comes from. So it's not really instead.
--
Bill Moseley
moseley@hank.org
Reply to: