Sanford Whiteman wrote:
> Standards-bearers,
> Let me let RFC 2821, Section 4.4, say it for me:
> > ... This use of return-path is required; mail systems MUST support
> > it.
Well its not the first time IMail isn't compliant with an RFC requirement.
> Yes, I know 2821 is still only proposed, but here's 1123 leaning in
> the same direction:
I've got no issues with referring to 2821. The Abstract states:
> ... It consolidates, updates
> and clarifies, but doesn't add new or change existing functionality
> of the following:
With one of the 'following' being RFC 1123.
> Do some tests and you'll see where I'm coming from.
No need to test :-) Just looking at the headers is sufficient to
note the lack of a 'Return-Path:'.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Hangers on though you be friends be more humble
when asking for seconds."
Katsuhito Masaki (Grandfather); Tenchi Muyo Episode 7
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
