Hello Alexander!
I'm insecure what I can say... :-)
(A) if the reply-address (entered in "Edit User"-General) is different
from my send address respectivly my From-Address, TB set the
"Return-Path:" to the reply-address resp. "Reply-To:"
Example:
---8<---------
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:27:05 +0100
From: Michael Wieczorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.41) Personal
Reply-To: Michael Wieczorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: home sweet home
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: niemand
Subject: Ein leeres Subject... ;-)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
---8<---------
(B) in this case the originator is - for me :-) -
[EMAIL PROTECTED], is'nt it? Not [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:20:00 +0300 GMT, Alexander V. Kiselev wrote:
(at my local time: 16.03.2000, 01:20:00 +0100 GMT)
>> But the "Return-Path:" is setting by *TB* to the "Reply-To:"-address
>> *not* by the server.
AVK> Nope;-) Here's what goes to the server in my own case (just an example):
AVK> ---8<---------
AVK> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:06:57 +0300
AVK> From: "Alexander V. Kiselev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AVK> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.41) Personal
AVK> Reply-To: "Alexander V. Kiselev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AVK> Organization: Home Sweet Home
AVK> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
AVK> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AVK> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AVK> Subject: test
AVK> Mime-Version: 1.0
AVK> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
AVK> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
AVK> test
AVK> -----8<------
In your case "From" and "Reply-To" are the _same_ addresses. Try
another address for "Reply-To:".
AVK> Note the _absence_ of the return-path: field. The latter field is added by the
AVK> "transport system that deliveres message to the recipient", not by the
AVK> originator (in this case, me, or, better to say, TB;-))
It is strange that _TB_ set the return-path...
(C) The problem - _my_ problem :-) is that my provider reject mails
which "return-path" is not the "From:"-address to avoid spamming or other ugly
things. So the "Reply-To"-entry in the "Edit User"-dialog is useless
for me... :-( But I need this feature.
>> If I right to understand the RFC-822 (see below), the RFC means that the
>> "Return-Path" is used to identify the _originator_. That means for me: the
>> _send-address_ not the reply-address.
>> RFC-822
>> [..]
>> 4.3.1. RETURN-PATH
>>
>> This field is added by the final transport system that
>> delivers the message to its recipient. The field is intended
>> to contain definitive information about the address and route
>> back to the message's originator.
>>
>> Note: The "Reply-To" field is added by the originator and
>> serves to direct replies, whereas the "Return-Path"
>> field is used to identify a path back to the origina-
>> tor.
>>
>> While the syntax indicates that a route specification is
>> optional, every attempt should be made to provide that infor-
>> mation in this field.
>> [..]
>> 4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
>> [..]
>> Note: The "Return-Path" field is added by the mail transport
>> service, at the time of final deliver. It is intended
>> to identify a path back to the orginator of the mes-
>> sage. The "Reply-To" field is added by the message
>> originator and is intended to direct replies.
>>
--
Bye, Michael
TheBat 1.41 [reg] - Windows NT 4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 5
_____________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 : [email protected]
