Re: mutt and Return-path

2004-01-23 Thread Colin Watson
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.''

Re: mutt and Return-path

2004-01-23 Thread Colin Watson
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]

Re: mutt and Return-path

2004-01-23 Thread Bill Moseley
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

Re: mutt and Return-path

2004-01-23 Thread Jan Minar
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

Re: mutt and Return-path

2004-01-23 Thread Mike Mueller
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

Re: mutt and Return-path

2004-01-22 Thread Jan Minar
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]

Re: mutt and Return-path

2004-01-22 Thread M. Mueller
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.''

Re: mutt and Return-path

2004-01-22 Thread Bill Moseley
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.''

mutt and Return-path

2004-01-20 Thread Mike Mueller
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