> On 28 Jun 2016, at 19:28, Chip <jeffsch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Okay maybe it's not in RFC's but I would it would be at least a
> recommendation that bounces can be routed back to bounces-to rather than
> reply-to. After all, why have the field at all if it's not used properly.
No RFC defines a bounces-to email header. Or how an MTA or MUA should handle
one. As a matter of fact, the only email-related RFC which contains the word
“bounce” is RFC5355. Which is in the Experimental category. It uses “bounce" in
the context of clients speaking UTF8SMTP to servers that don’t support this
feature.
Here’s the relevant part of Section 4.4 of that RFC:
Below are a few examples of possible <mailbox> representations.
...
"DISPLAY_NAME" <non-ASCII@non-ASCII>
; UTF8SMTP but no ALT-ADDRESS parameter provided,
; message will bounce if UTF8SMTP extension is not supported
<non-ASCII@non-ASCII>
; without DISPLAY_NAME and quoted string
; UTF8SMTP but no ALT-ADDRESS parameter provided,
; message will bounce if UTF8SMTP extension is not supported
If you think bounces-to has to be part of Internet email standards, feel free
to write up a draft and submit it to the IETF.
