On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:09:11PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:29:01PM +0100, M. Mueller wrote: > > > > Indeed. Currently I am setting From and Return-path to the same values > > in the default values and the folder-hook values > > > > Is Return-path necessary? It seems redundant. Your description doesn't > > imply that it's necessary. I'll read the RFC. Thanks. > > I wouldn't have thought that the MUA should set Return-Path at all; it's > not its job. A brief glance at the mutt source shows no code that seems > to set Return-Path. Just leave it out of your .muttrc altogether?
That's what I started out doing. I sent two messages to my virtual web host email account. The first did not have Return-path set in .muttrc. The second _did_ have the Return-path set in .muttrc. Only the second message made it through. The Return-path value on the receive side was the same as the value inserted by Mutt. Results suggest Return-path value must be valid. I am using nullmailer as my MTA. Maybe there is some way to have the MTA set the Return-path value based on the From value. It appears that if I add the Return-path value, then nullmailer doesn't alter what I put in. What would exim do in this scenario? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]