Article View: net.mail.headers
Article #105Re: "Return-Path" vs. "From"
From: Craig.Everhart
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1984 19:00
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1984 19:00
14 lines
1545 bytes
1545 bytes
It just doesn't matter, period, that the two are different. I don't care what you think of the aesthetics of each individual field--whether it was a design choice that those two fields look as they do, or (as is the case) that their current appearance is an accident of history. That's none of your business! Obviously, your mailer should NEVER use the Return-Path: field in composing replies (except for error notification). Both addresses work. I could even argue that using a Return-Path identifier that doesn't look like a name is a good idea, precisely to discourage people from using it for ordinary replies. A local (CMU-CS-A) mail system user might have some cause to complain about the aesthetics of the outgoing fields. However, you aren't such, and have no business making that complaint. Craig Everhart
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<07Feb84.140020.RD00@CMU-CS-A>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!hou3c!Craig.Everhart@CMU-CS-A.ARPAShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!hou3c!Craig.Everhart@CMU-CS-A.ARPA From: Craig.Everhart@CMU-CS-A.ARPA Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: "Return-Path" vs. "From" Message-ID: <07Feb84.140020.RD00@CMU-CS-A> Date: Tue, 7-Feb-84 14:00:00 EST Article-I.D.: CMU-CS-A.07Feb84.140020.RD00 Posted: Tue Feb 7 14:00:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 22:32:27 EST Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Reply-To: Rdmail@CMU-CS-A.ARPA Lines: 17 To: Nathaniel Mishkin <Mishkin@YALE> In-Reply-To: "Nathaniel Mishkin's message of 6 Feb 84 15:19-EST"