From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27455 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2009 18:16:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 27446 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2009 18:16:11 -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 18:16:05 +0000 Received: by ewy26 with SMTP id 26so2940697ewy.2 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:16:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.19.198 with SMTP id n48mr92393wen.41.1236190561939; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:16:01 -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 i4sm845681nfh.59.2009.03.04.10.16.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:16:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49AEC792.8000201@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:16:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The Draft and Nonstandardised 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> <49AEAECD.5030506@gmail.com> <0E63A1E9C219A9822515737A@orees.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <0E63A1E9C219A9822515737A@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/msg00055.txt.bz2 Owen Rees wrote: > --On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 16:39:41 +0000 Dave Korn wrote: > >> 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 > To quote RFC2026: > > 2.2 Internet-Drafts > That, and the rest of RFC2026 makes it clear that a "internet draft" has > lower status than an RFC - it is typically a proposal that may > eventually turn into an RFC. Oh, I remembered the order of progression wrong, I thought it was RFC->draft->STD. > On the subject of expiry: > > draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt > Expires: May 1998 > > It has not been followed up for over 10 years so I think that indicates > the status of the proposal as far as the IETF process is concerned. True, but that's not the whole story; the IETF standards process has always been a lagged and idealised version of reality. Still, I will reword my earlier paragraph: > 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 > does not comply with common internet practice, but if it resorts to using > the Return-Path header, it is completely incorrect. The Return-Path is > for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort. cheers, DaveK