** 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]