🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11800@brl-adm.ARPA> slevy@uc.msc.umn.edu (Stuart Levy) writes:
>(In reply to Rob Austein's message <SRA.12374181810.BABYL@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>)
>
>I don't think it's fair to call a mailer "broken" because it retains the
>address of the original sender for reply purposes.  If mailing-list
>

[ stuff deleted ]

>Sendmail seems to support "Errors-To"; how many other mailers do?
>
>	Stuart Levy, Minn. Supercomputer Center


May I interject something here.  I wonder if the complaint is more about
mailers that DO NOT preserve the original From: line than those that do?

I bring this up because I've noticed that my From: line has been changed
when passing through various gateways, whenever I have been fortunate
enough to establish return communications.  This alteration of the From: line
in the gateway has definately caused problems because the changes no longer
reflect an accurate Return path.  Now if my observations are correct,
what mechnism can be used to ensure accurate return paths while permitting
the various gateways to munge things before completing message transmission?
I have been unable to establish the existence of any such mechanism and am
forced to include a full return path in the body of the message to ensure
return mail.  I conclude, therfore, that mailers making this type of 
arbitrary change can be classed as broken.
-- 
G. Roderick Singleton              |  "ALL animals are created equal,
   <gerry@syntron.uucp>,           |   BUT some animals are MORE equal
or <gerry@geac.uucp>,              |   than others." a warning from
or <gerry@eclectic.uucp>           |  "Animal Farm" by George Orwell