From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8654 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2009 12:30:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 8600 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2009 12:30:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 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; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:30:42 +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 n24CUY7d021398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 04:30:34 -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 n24CUWPR013010 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 04:30:33 -0800 Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:30:00 -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: <980E7CF9434CB68895B336D3@orees.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <49AE6F03.5040003@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-MailScanner-ID: n24CUY7d021398 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-q1/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 --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. -- Owen Rees ======================================================== Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN