[Top] [All Lists]

Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?

2007-10-18 10:18:44

SM wrote:
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.

Using the RFC2822 field name Return-Path has obvious appeal, but I am concerned that

a) it is not in broad use and is restricted to a smaller email geek community -- maybe that's ok?, and

b) the string really isn't a "path" even tough it might be legal to be -- it's an address, and

c) the non-geek community uses the term 'return address' for mail that contains the same semantic information, albeit from the postal world.



  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking