** Sometime around 22:58 -0600 11/29/01, Winship said: >On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Vince Sabio wrote: > > ** Sometime around 20:32 -0600 11/29/01, Winship said: > > > > >On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Randy Ryan wrote: > > > > Exactly what portion of the header in a listserv email >donates the bounce > > > > address? > > > > The address shown in the "Return-Path:" header is the bounce address. > >Some systems decide they must insert their own "Return-path" field so you >have two, different, return paths. Fun. Douglas Yes, that can happen -- and that practice is in violation of RFC2821 (for what it's worth). The MTA is permitted to remove and replace an existing Return-Path: header, but is not allowed to create a situation in which there are two of them, as this can lead to ambiguity. Also, on closer inspection of RFC2821, it appears that bouncing to envelope-from *is* now required. Appended to a poorly-worded historical note in Sect. 4.4 is this: The reverse path address (as copied into the Return-path) MUST be used as the target of any mail containing delivery error messages. So there you have it -- yet another RFC requirement for Microsoft and Lotus (IBM) to ignore. *sigh* __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio [log in to unmask]