On Fri January 28 2005 20:25, Dave Crocker wrote:
Yes, but that's no problem, only Sender-ID fans hate this idea. As long
as there is no Sender: I'd consider the mailbox in the Return-Path: as
some kind of default "sender".
That would be a mistake.
If there is no rfc2822.sender field, then rfc2822.from is defined as holding
the (virtual) value of sender.
If a Sender: mailbox is spec> > the language that says what to actually DO
with this string is
> clear and straightforward: it is a notifications address.
Sure, but as "originator" I can't specify whatever I like, it's an
address for error reports...
If I'd think that ICANN should solve my mail problems, then I'm
still _not_ free to say "bounces to ICANN".
That is why the architecture document states that the rfc2822.sender
specifies the value in rfc2821.mailfrom.
That is as wrong as Frank's suggestion. RFC282{12}.Return-Path
specifies the value in RFC2821.mailfrom.