On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:35:09 -0600, Jason R. Mastaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned: > "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> why shouldn't auto-responders be using From? > > Essentially because this is the sole purpose of Return-Path -- to > provide an address suitable for machine generated messages. SMTP > servers already use Return-Path for automated messages. Using > Return-Path for auto-responses is also recommended by the IETF draft > ``Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail''[1], and > TMDA attempts to be standards-compliant. Section 4 of the draft > discusses the pros and cons of using Return-Path, Sender, From, or > Reply-To for this purpose. In summary: > > ``The Return-Path address is really the only one from the message > header that can be expected, as a matter of protocol, to be suitable > for automatic responses that were not anticipated by the sender.'' > > I'll note that TMDA used Return-Path long before this draft was > written. >
So what about mail that originates from non-externally-routable machines? Or can you get around that with clever sendmail-and-friends configuration? -- monique _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
