At 09:59 18-10-2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
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
The term may not sound that obtuse to non-technical people. By
coining new terms, we create a disconnect between the email "geek"
community and non-technical people.
b) the string really isn't a "path" even tough it might be legal
to be -- it's an address, and
It's easier if we leave it as "path" as the person can see that in
the header. Path also conveys where the message will be returned if
it cannot be delivered.
c) the non-geek community uses the term 'return address' for
mail that contains the same semantic information, albeit from the postal world.
Some people may confuse the "return address" with what they see from
the visible part of the message. The difference between the postal
world and email is that people actually see the envelope whereas
email hides that information from the recipient.