From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19373 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2009 16:30:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 19356 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2009 16:30:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ew0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f178.google.com) (209.85.219.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:30:23 +0000 Received: by ewy26 with SMTP id 26so2899728ewy.2 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.1.85 with SMTP id 63mr43494wec.26.1236184219891; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:30:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?82.6.108.62? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 2sm6627044nfv.48.2009.03.04.08.30.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:30:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49AEAECD.5030506@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:30:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List 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> <980E7CF9434CB68895B336D3@orees.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <980E7CF9434CB68895B336D3@orees.hpl.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List X-SW-Source: 2009-q1/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 Owen Rees wrote: > --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. Yes, you're right. Looking at the history, it's never made it to the status of an STD, but there was an IETF draft proposal (which is actually one stage more advanced than an RFC): http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt and there are some more details at: http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html So it's only a de-facto standard. Any mailer which doesn't want to implement it is free to do so, but it is still incorrect if it uses Return-Path for replies. cheers, DaveK