Hi Dave,
At 12:48 13-10-2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
In the Internet Mail Architecture draft:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-email-arch-09.txt>
There terms "Bounce Handler" and "Bounce address" are used. As the
document notes, the terms are not the nicest, but they seem to be
the most prevalent.
(Earlier drafts attempted to use the term "Notices" but this gained
to traction.)
There has been some community input suggesting that "Return [Path]
address" and "Return Handler" would be better choices.
The Return-path is a header with an address which is the
reverse-path. Reverse-path is better than "Bounce handling
address". I prefer "Return-path Handler" over "Return Handler" as
people may be able to relate to what they see in a message.
Bounce unfortunately has a negative connotation given the reject
versus bounce debate.
Regards,
-sm