ken wrote: > > > But there is another issue that we need to address. Envelope-From: > > > is a valid message header. It's remotely conceivable that someone > > > might have a need to use it for another purpose. And there are other > > > SMTP parameters that it might be useful to set, e.g.: deliver-by. > > > I don't like the idea of co-opting yet more headers out of the 822 > > > namespace for this. > > > >is there any technical reason that the proposed Envelope-From: header > >functionality simply be named "Return-path:"? since i assume MH > >will remove this header (whatever we call it) from the draft before > >submitting to SMTP, i wouldn't think there's a conflict. > > Yes, actually, there is.
okay, i can believe that. > > Think about the case when you're dist'ing a message with a Return-Path > header. There's no way to distinguish between the existing Return-Path > header and the one you would possibly add (there is already a Resent-Sender > header that post knows how to deal with). I'm assuming we don't want > a Resent-Return-Path header. experimental evidence tells me that i can't send a message with a Return-Path at all, when dist'ing messages containing one or more of them -- all but the new one have been discarded by the time the message reaches the recipient. but stracing post convinces me that it's likely postfix that's discarding them all (or perhaps gmail, which was the recipient in this case.) paul =--------------------- paul fox, [email protected] (arlington, ma, where it's 67.1 degrees) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
