- -----Original Message----- - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of R. - Scott Perry - Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 18:40 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Return-Path vs. X-Sender header? - - >It can very well be some other address than the address where it was - >sent from. Like the reply-to: header. - - No. The Return-Path: header is supposed to include the exact - address that - was used in the "MAIL FROM:" SMTP command (from the "Message - Envelope"). This:
"It is possible for the mailbox in the return path to be different
from the actual sender's mailbox, for example, if error responses are
to be delivered to a special error handling mailbox rather than to
the message sender. When mailing lists are involved, this
arrangement is common and useful as a means of directing errors to
the list maintainer rather than the message originator."
In combination with this:
"There is no inherent relationship between either "reverse" (from
MAIL, SAML, etc., commands) or "forward" (RCPT) addresses in the SMTP
transaction ("envelope") and the addresses in the headers. Receiving
systems SHOULD NOT attempt to deduce such relationships and use them
to alter the headers of the message for delivery. The popular
"Apparently-to" header is a violation of this principle as well as a
common source of unintended information disclosure and SHOULD NOT be
used."
Contradicts that.
- > And as a note, the preferred headers to set by servers
- with the envelope > to and from addresses are:
- Apparently-To: & Apparently-From:
-
- Do you have a source for this?
Well, I saw it in some RFC, but apparently RFC 2821
(http://rfc.net/rfc2821.html) overrules that as you can see in the last
quote from that RFC above.
--
Regards,
Terrence Koeman
Technical Director/Administrator
MediaMonks B.V. (www.mediamonks.nl)
Please quote all replies in correspondence.
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
