From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3084 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2009 13:18:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 3075 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Mar 2009 13:18:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:18:36 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 26so580597eyw.20 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:18:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.11.72 with SMTP id 50mr673343wew.64.1236259113629; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:18:33 -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 1sm4073205nfv.70.2009.03.05.05.18.32 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:18:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49AFD35C.8080401@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:18:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The Obscure and Esoteric 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> <49AEC792.8000201@gmail.com> <45E05A5031511FBDC9B6D640@orees.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <45E05A5031511FBDC9B6D640@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/msg00057.txt.bz2 Owen Rees wrote: > All that would be needed to make this work would be to update all mail > clients That's probably the oldest meme on the internet. "All we need do to make X work is update every Y in the world". > I am not convinced that Mail-Followup-To is common practice. Do most > mailing lists insert it? cygwin apparently does but cygwin-talk does not > nor do any of the other mailing lists to which I subscribe. Do the most > widely used clients and webmail services support it? It's a client header, so the question is not whether other lists insert it or not, but how well supported it is by common mail clients. There's a list at DJB's page (many years out of date) that mentions qmail, mutt, Gnus, Kmail and SquirrelMail, and I spent five minutes googling and discovered that since then it has also become supported by packages such as emacs and Thunderbird. So it's reasonable to say that it has a fair degree of adoption. This is how the internet has always worked: someone proposes an idea, some other people support it in software, everyone tries it out and if it works good it gets widely-adopted. The whole standardisation process is very much an after-the-fact matter of documenting what the de facto standards are and providing a gold-standard for interoperability so that any little misaligned wrinkles between the various implementations can be ironed out. > It is certainly true that using Return-Path for replies is wrong but > there are very few circumstances under which it is used at all. The > return-path line preserves the reverse-path information from the SMTP > envelope; it is the envelope reverse-path that is used to report errors, > the return-path line usually does not exist at the point where delivery > errors are detected. The most widespread use is in NDRs, which add "Return-Path: <>" so that you don't get bounces, loops and explosions of NDRs for NDRs for NDRs and so on. cheers, DaveK