Re: Return-Path: question

procmail

Re: Return-Path: question

1997-06-07 17:49:00

Quoting The Doctor {Who?} (doctor(_at_)netcom(_dot_)com):

On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Bill Moseley wrote:

My question:  Is the Return-Path an optional header, and is it something I
shouldn't rely on in my procmail recipes?  Is the "From_" header a better
and more reliable choice?


Be interested to know what you hear here, if not ON the list.


Why not filter on "X-Mailing-List: <procmail"?

Mike Stone

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Return-Path: question, Bill Moseley Re: Return-Path: question, Eric Schult Re: Return-Path: question, The Doctor {Who?} Re: Return-Path: question, Michael Stone <= Re: Return-Path: question, Shoeless in San Jose Re: Return-Path: question, William J. Evans; mail protected by spamgard{tm} Re: Return-Path: question, Stan Ryckman

Previous by Date:	Re: Adding an In-Reply-To field, Vincent Lefevre
Next by Date:	Re: SPAM>Re: Marketing tool, Dave/WebMaster
Previous by Thread:	Re: Return-Path: question, The Doctor {Who?}
Next by Thread:	Re: Return-Path: question, Shoeless in San Jose
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]