Article View: net.mail.headers
Article #45Re: Need for new field in RFC and MHS standards
From: Marshall Rose
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1985 15:50
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1985 15:50
11 lines
1136 bytes
1136 bytes
In addition, MHS has the notion of a protocol field which says what type of protocol is being used. The only defined value is "P2" which stands for InterPersonalMessage. Other values will probably be defined in the future. In the standard 821 world, there is NO need for what you suggest. The message's envelope contains (among other things) a return-address. What programs which generate messages should do (if they don't want to see a failure notice) is simply leave the return-address blank. This is understood to mean "don't tell me about it if it loses". /mtr
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<427@brl-tgr.ARPA>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!mrose%NRTC@USC-ECL.ARPAShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!mrose%NRTC@USC-ECL.ARPA From: mrose%NRTC@USC-ECL.ARPA (Marshall Rose) Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: Need for new field in RFC and MHS standards Message-ID: <427@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Mon, 9-Dec-85 10:50:21 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.427 Posted: Mon Dec 9 10:50:21 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 03:56:19 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 11