Tony Finch wrote:
Therefore I think it's legitimate for a modern description of
the architecture to omit source-routed paths on the grounds
that they are ana anomalous historical relic.
IBTD. The literal meaning of "Return-Path" is unclear without
a proper understanding of the origial concept, and the rather
unstructured description of paths in 2821 is far from enough to
get this idea.
And there are different aspects of this issue. AFAIK Bruce is
always interested in "who changes what when why". So if I send
my MAIL FROM:<dcrocker(_at_)fqdn> (an appointed by me "bounces-to"
manager), and you get it as Return-Path: <@host:dcrocker(_at_)fqdn>,
then the @host could be a legal effect, no forgery. Bye, Frank