🚀 go-pugleaf

    It isn't totally unreasonable for the From or Reply fields to
    be a "meaningful" address, such as "Mark.Crispin@Stanford" (which
    we fully intend to support in the near future) while the
    "Return-Path" would be a "machine" address incorporating a login
    name and physical machine, such as "MRC@SU-SCORE".
    
I completely agree with the goal of using "logical" names.  However,
this doesn't make a virtue out of the strangeness of the "Return-Path".
If you want the functionality you say (i.e. that the recipient can
see both the user ID and the logical name of the sender), it seems
like you should use a "Sender" line and not rely on the behavior of
the "Return-Path" (whose contents are presumably not under the control
of the person/mailsystem that decides that presenting both the user
ID and the logical name is a good idea).