This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings
- From: Owen Rees <owen dot rees at hp dot com>
- To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:30:32 +0000
- Subject: Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings
- References: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> <49ADBA0D.6040405@gmail.com> <49ADEF5E.3060804@columbus.rr.com> <49ADF5B5.5000102@gmail.com> <49AE0F52.1060006@columbus.rr.com> <49AE6F03.5040003@gmail.com>
- Reply-to: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
--On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:07:31 +0000 Dave Korn wrote:
Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing
at the list. Any mailer that does not respect that when you hit Reply is
broken and does not comply with internet standards. The Return-Path is
for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort.
Can you give a link to the relevant internet standard please. I could not
find it in RFC5322 (nor in RFC2822 which it obsoletes (nor in RFC0822 which
it obsoletes)). RFC2369 which defines mailing list command specification
header fields also says nothing about that field.
As far as I can tell, the standards define Reply-To and Return-Path but not
Mail-Followup-To.
--
Owen Rees
========================================================
Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN