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.''
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]
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
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
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
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]
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.''
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.''
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
9 matches
Mail list logo