|
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 18 Aug 1994 14:07:47 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Earlier today, Eric Thomas wrote:
> Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to this question. If you check
> the RFC's, they say that the error must go to the SMTP MAIL FROM: address
> (and never to the RFC822 Reply-To: or From: address, unless of course it
> happens to be the same). Now, the problem with RFC's is that they only
Oh, now I see. I was confusing the top FROM: line with the
internal From: line. My problem with the Alaska folks is that they
were returning bounced mail to the internal From: address, creating
massive confusion for posters on my list. I gather from what you've
said that the Alaska system shouldn't have done that, but it may not
have had much of a choice. Darn. How can I write an indignant,
self-righteous note complaining about their actions if they really had
no better alternative? :-)
Anyway, many thanks for answering my question.
Joan Korenman, WMST-L Listowner KORENMAN@UMBC
Univ. of MD. Baltimore County [log in to unmask]
Baltimore, Maryland 21228-5398
|
|
|