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

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.
George