Hello Alexander!
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:06:42 +0300 GMT, Alexander V. Kiselev wrote:
(at my local time: 15.03.2000, 23:06:42 +0100 GMT)
AVK> Hi there!
AVK> On 15 Mar 00, at 22:17, Stefan Tanurkov wrote
AVK> about "Re: Using Macros for header (%RETUR":
>> MW> Using the macro
>> MW> %RETURNPATH=""%RETURNPATH="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" the
>> MW> Return-Path in the header is setting to "Return-Path:
>> MW> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>", that is right. But if I save the
>> MW> message (as draft for example), change the message and save it again,
>> MW> "Return-Path" is set to my reply-address. The Return-Path is now
>> MW> "Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]". That is _not_ what I want.
>>
>> But it is exactly what must be in the field accordingly to RFC-822...
AVK> ...and Stefan is right (as always;-)) here: you should *not* set the return-path
AVK> yourself, on the user side you should limit yourself to altering the Reply-To:
AVK> header... because return-path: is subject to be set/changed/altered by the
AVK> SMTP server...
But the "Return-Path:" is setting by *TB* to the "Reply-To:"-address
*not* by the server. If I right to understand the RFC-822 (see below), the RFC
means that the "Return-Path" is used to identify the _originator_.
That means for me: the _send-address_ not the reply-address.
Explanation to above: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is my send address, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is my reply-address. But the header generated by TB looks like
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:09:46 +0100
From: Michael Wieczorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.41) Personal
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: home sweet home
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: test mit re nach gmx
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
RFC-822
[..]
4.3.1. RETURN-PATH
This field is added by the final transport system that
delivers the message to its recipient. The field is intended
to contain definitive information about the address and route
back to the message's originator.
Note: The "Reply-To" field is added by the originator and
serves to direct replies, whereas the "Return-Path"
field is used to identify a path back to the origina-
tor.
While the syntax indicates that a route specification is
optional, every attempt should be made to provide that infor-
mation in this field.
[..]
4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
[..]
Note: The "Return-Path" field is added by the mail transport
service, at the time of final deliver. It is intended
to identify a path back to the orginator of the mes-
sage. The "Reply-To" field is added by the message
originator and is intended to direct replies.
So I think it is a bug by TB, is'nt it?
--
Bye, Michael
TheBat 1.41 [reg] - Windows NT 4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 5
_____________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
