Re: mutt and Return-path
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:40:02PM +0100, Jan Minar wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:41:30AM -0500, Mike Mueller wrote: Is there significance to the Return-path value? Basically, it tells the addressee ``Don't reply to the address in the `From:' field, but to this one/these, please.'' See [1]RFC 822, section 4.4.3 for details. RFC 822 does not say that. It says that Return-Path is intended to identify a path back to the originator of the message, and in the next sentence explicitly differentiates this from Reply-To. Return-Path is more to indicate where bounces would go (although in practice you'd use the SMTP envelope sender instead). Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mutt and Return-path
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:29:01PM +0100, M. Mueller wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:40:02PM +0100, Jan Minar wrote: Basically, it tells the addressee ``Don't reply to the address in the `From:' field, but to this one/these, please.'' See [1]RFC 822, section 4.4.3 for details. [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822 Is this what you asked for? 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? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mutt and Return-path
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:07:05PM +, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:40:02PM +0100, Jan Minar wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:41:30AM -0500, Mike Mueller wrote: Is there significance to the Return-path value? Basically, it tells the addressee ``Don't reply to the address in the `From:' field, but to this one/these, please.'' See [1]RFC 822, section 4.4.3 for details. RFC 822 does not say that. It says that Return-Path is intended to identify a path back to the originator of the message, and in the next sentence explicitly differentiates this from Reply-To. Return-Path is more to indicate where bounces would go (although in practice you'd use the SMTP envelope sender instead). Which is where Return-Path comes from. So it's not really instead. -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mutt and Return-path
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:07:05PM +, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:40:02PM +0100, Jan Minar wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:41:30AM -0500, Mike Mueller wrote: Is there significance to the Return-path value? Basically, it tells the addressee ``Don't reply to the address in the `From:' field, but to this one/these, please.'' See [1]RFC 822, section 4.4.3 for details. RFC 822 does not say that. It says that Return-Path is intended to identify a path back to the originator of the message, and in the next sentence explicitly differentiates this from Reply-To. Return-Path is more to indicate where bounces would go (although in practice you'd use the SMTP envelope sender instead). I mis-read Return-path for Reply-to, obviously; I'm sorry for the noise; thank you for a correction, Colin. -- Jan Minar Please don't CC me, I'm subscribed. x 9 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt and Return-path
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:09:11PM +, 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]
Re: mutt and Return-path
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:41:30AM -0500, Mike Mueller wrote: Is there significance to the Return-path value? Basically, it tells the addressee ``Don't reply to the address in the `From:' field, but to this one/these, please.'' See [1]RFC 822, section 4.4.3 for details. [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822 Is this what you asked for? Jan. -- Jan Minar Please don't CC me, I'm subscribed. x 9 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt and Return-path
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:40:02PM +0100, Jan Minar wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:41:30AM -0500, Mike Mueller wrote: Is there significance to the Return-path value? Basically, it tells the addressee ``Don't reply to the address in the `From:' field, but to this one/these, please.'' See [1]RFC 822, section 4.4.3 for details. [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822 Is this what you asked for? 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. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mutt and Return-path
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:40:02PM +0100, Jan Minar wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:41:30AM -0500, Mike Mueller wrote: Is there significance to the Return-path value? Basically, it tells the addressee ``Don't reply to the address in the `From:' field, but to this one/these, please.'' Sounds more like Reply-to: than Return-path: -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mutt and Return-path
My new mutt install is not getting mail to all destinations. I notice that Return-path on mutt mails is set to an unresolvable name: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could some mail nodes along the way be rejecting the mail because of the Return-path value? In .muttrc I set: my_hdr Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then emails started getting through. Is there significance to the Return-path value? -- Mike Mueller 324881 (08/20/2003) Make clockwise circles with your right foot. Now use your right hand to draw the number 6 in the air. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
