🚀 go-pugleaf

Interestingly, karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste)
	had this to say about "Mail header wishlist":
}
} That would be unnecessary if mailing lists would all make sure that,
} when distributing out to the list's recipients, an Errors-To:
} listname-request@listname-host-machine header were included.  Then
} bounces would go to the admin only, and nowhere else.
} 

"Errors-To:"?  I've just gotten back to this group after a
long time of not having time to read it, and this was the
second posting that hadn't expired, so I imagine this was
proposed as an additional header to add to the next mail
RFC, whenever that comes out.  My question: is this
necessary?  My copy of RFC822 says (section 4.4.4):

	The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of any
	problems in transport or delivery of the original messages.
	If there is no "Sender" field, then the "From" field mailbox
	should be used.

	The "Sender field mailbox should NEVER be used automatically,
	in a recipient's reply message.

So, if the mailing list would put the "request" address in
the "Sender" field, compliant mailers should send bounces to
that, without any standards or software changes (assuming
sendmail/mmdf and other major transports actually obey
this).  The second quoted paragraph indicates that replies
wouldn't (or shouldn't) use this field, so doing this wouldn't
affect the ability to reply to messages sent out by the list
processor.

-- 
Keith Reynolds, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.

{uunet,ucbvax!ucscc,decvax!microsoft,spl1,sun}!sco!keithr
keithr@sco.COM, @ucscc.UCSC.EDU:keithr@sco.COM, keithr%sco.COM@ucscc.UCSC.EDU

"Though a program be but three lines long,
	someday it will have to be maintained." -- The Tao of Programming