From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16569 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2009 15:56:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 16562 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Mar 2009 15:56:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gundega.hpl.hp.com (HELO gundega.hpl.hp.com) (192.6.19.190) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:56:19 +0000 Received: from masterns.hpl.hp.com (masterns.hpl.hp.com [15.0.48.4]) by gundega.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id n25FuB5n026867 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:56:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from orees.hpl.hp.com (orees.hpl.hp.com [16.25.175.183]) by masterns.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id n25Fu9LS003733 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:56:10 -0800 Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:56:00 -0000 From: Owen Rees To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Subject: Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings Message-ID: <62743174EA5B5317274570F1@orees.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <49AFD35C.8080401@gmail.com> 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> <49AFD35C.8080401@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-MailScanner-ID: n25FuB5n026867 X-HPL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-HPL-MailScanner-From: owen.rees@hp.com X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2009-q1/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 --On Thursday, March 05, 2009 13:27:56 +0000 Dave Korn wrote: > 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. If the idea had been proposed this century... > 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. The Return-Path header would be used only if a message is being relayed via some non-SMTP mail transport that understands internet message headers and an error occurs in that non-SMTP environment. In transit via SMTP messages SHOULD NOT contain a Return-Path header. The reverse path is carried in the SMTP envelope and delivery errors are reported using the SMTP envelope addresses. -- Owen Rees; speaking personally, and not on behalf of HP. ======================================================== Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN