Some people forge the Return-Path. Others add it prematurely. I’d trust the VERP over re-stating the Friendly, but who knows.
Sometimes the safest thing, if you are the actual end receiver, is to remove any Return-Path headers in the message, because gosh darned it, they are only there to save the state of the RFC 821 values, and technically serve no other legitimate purpose. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool<http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ? From: mailop <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Autumn Tyr-Salvia Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:01 PM To: Mailop <[email protected]> Subject: [mailop] 2 Return-Path headers? Hello, I'm looking at headers for a particular message, and noticed two different Return-Path headers. The message is being sent by an ESP. One Return-Path uses a VERP address with the ESP's domain, and the other uses the same address as the friendly From:. I haven't seen this in other headers before - is this common? Why would there be 2? I spent some quality time with RFC 2822 and couldn't determine if it's spec-legal to have two Return-Path headers or not. More to the point, it's using the one with the ESP domain for checking SPF, which is not what the desired behavior. I can reach out directly to the ESP in question to get more info, but wanted to ask this group first if there's some other resource I should consult for a firm understanding of using multiple Return-Path headers before I have that conversation. Thanks, Autumn Tyr-Salvia tyrsalvia@gmail atyrsalvia@agari
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
