Re: Using Macros for header (%RETURNPATH="...")

[Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris)]

Hello!


Thursday, March 16, 2000, 2:43, Michael Wieczorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

<lost>

AVK>> ...and Stefan is right (as always;-)) here: you should *not* set
AVK>> the return-path yourself, on the user side you should limit
AVK>> yourself to altering the Reply-To: header... because return-path:
AVK>> is subject to be set/changed/altered by the SMTP server...
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Take a look at these words.

MW> But the "Return-Path:" is setting by *TB* to the "Reply-To:"-address
MW> *not* by the server.

See my note above. It's a server's deal to _operate_ with this header.
Do you know that Return-Path isn't limited only to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
form? Here's some sample for you:

Return-Path: sunny.aha.ru!apache.org!apache-announce-owner

MW>  If I right to understand the RFC-822 (see below), the RFC
MW> means that the "Return-Path" is used to identify the _originator_.

It's intended to provide an addressing information about originator and,
in some cases, the back route for message originator, for example, in
UUCP form.

MW> That means for me: the _send-address_ not the reply-address.

MW> Explanation to above: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is my send address, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MW> is my reply-address. But the header generated by TB looks like

MW> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MW> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:09:46 +0100
MW> From: Michael Wieczorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MW> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.41) Personal
MW> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MW> Organization: home sweet home
MW> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
MW> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MW> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MW> Subject: test mit re nach gmx
MW> Mime-Version: 1.0
MW> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
MW> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

MW> RFC-822
MW> [..]
MW> 4.3.1.  RETURN-PATH

MW>                This field  is  added  by  the  final  transport  system  that
MW>                delivers  the message to its recipient.  The field is intended
MW>                to contain definitive information about the address and  route
MW>                back to the message's originator.

This is the key words.

<lost>

MW>                Note:  The "Return-Path" field is added by the mail  transport
MW>                       service,  at the time of final deliver.  It is intended
MW>                       to identify a path back to the orginator  of  the  mes-
MW>                       sage.

And this is too.

MW> So I think it is a bug by TB, is'nt it?

No.


X-TheBat-Version: 1.41
X-OS: Windows 95 4.0.1111 B PE
X-System-Info: iP-III-500/128


-- 

Best regards,                       mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris)      http://www.andris.msk.ru/

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org