[Top] [All Lists]

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

2007-10-18 10:48:06

Dave Crocker wrote:

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
I see this as a benefit, actually. By using a term that hasn't taken on meanings in other contexts you lower the risk of people having built-in and hard-to-break assumptions about what it means.