Hector Santos wrote:
This changes CODE!!! My code!!
Pardon ? Users of a server using your code certainly expect that
there is precisely one Return-Path, reflecting the MAIL FROM as
seen by the final delivery MTA.
I'd bet that your code already does this, or do you keep crappy
Return-Paths inserted by prior hops in the header ? What would
users do with that, where "user" can be anything from a stupid
vacation script and other auto-responders up to gateways.
What does this have to to with SMTP?
SMTP specifies who, when. what, and how for the Return-Path. In
RFC 2822 you also find that there's at most one Return-Path, not
If RFC 3834 requires it, thats fine. But you don't need 3834
to create bounces.
It's needed to create other auto-responses:
| If the response is to be generated after delivery, and there is no
| Return-Path field in the subject message, there is an implementation
| or configuration error in the SMTP server that delivered the message
| or gatewayed the message outside of SMTP. A Personal or Group
| responder SHOULD NOT deliver a response to any address other than
| that in the Return-Path field, even if the Return-Path field is
| missing. It is better to fix the problem with the mail delivery
| system than to rely on heuristics to guess the appropriate
| destination of the response. Such heuristics have been known to
| cause problems in the past.
Are we trying to nail that the MAIL FROM = reverse path = envelope
sender = return path = "bounces to" <shudder /> is "the real thing"
everywhere, or do we need to discuss this emulation known as "PRA" ?