Maarten Bezemer <mcbff(_at_)opensourcepartners(_dot_)nl> writes:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:
"" should work, "<>" is just a workaround for broken sendmails (up to
and including 8.12.6, maybe even later, haven't checked 8.12.7).
True, but msgblk.return_path[0] is checked to see if there already is a
return path set from the Return-Path: header, and if not, it is set to
resent-sender, or sender, or resent-from, etc. At that time, the
Return-Path: header is no longer available (except for ctl->mda).
So let fetchmail carry a flag return_path_seen and be done with that. No
guessing what an empty string might mean.
While -f "<>" is only a workaround for -f "", would it be OK to always use
"<>" instead of "" ? Would it break things?
I can't say. -f "<>" works with sendmail and postfix, but I haven't
tried Exim, ZMailer or qmail.
It would be even better to forward with SMTP.
--
Matthias Andree