Looks OK to me from a theoretical perspective..
But I agree with Noel, it's one of those compliance related changes that
really needs tested with as many cases as we can muster.

d.





|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "Noel J. Bergman"|
|         |           <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|         |           >                |
|         |                            |
|         |           17/08/2004 10:27 |
|         |           PM               |
|         |           Please respond to|
|         |           "James Developers|
|         |           List"            |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                    
                           |
  |       To:       "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                        
                 |
  |       cc:       "Hontvari Jozsef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                              
                       |
  |       Subject:  PLEASE REVIEW - Proposed Fix for Return-Path handling (subsumes 
JAMES-264 mail loop)          |
  
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




> > the root of the problem, the usage of Return-Path header
> > will still be in the code
>
> That is what I've been looking at today.  It is a riskier
> change to make on a point release, but might be worthwhile.

I need to test this, and haven't even started.  But I'd like to get as many
eyes on this as possible.

             --- Noel




***************************************************************************
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. 
If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to 
the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the 
message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its 
contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data 
corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any  responsibility for 
changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be 
inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining 
written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender 
accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to 
scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of 
the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company 
Limited.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of 
computer viruses.

**************************************************************************


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to