> James does bounce back to the envelope sender (indirectly, using the > Return-path header, not mail.getSender()), ...
This is correct, as the incoming message's return-path can be different from the reverse-path, and the first one should be used in this case (as of RFC 2821). > ... but with a NOT null > reverse path. And this IMO should be fixed. > So the problem is that the bounce may bounce back. I.e. the > bounce should be > sent with > MAIL FROM: <> > > As I see currently it is sent with MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (for example, this is the default). > Vincenzo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
