Author: Kai Henningsen Date: To: exim-users Subject: Re: [Exim] Should vacation messages go to reply_address or return_path
woods@??? (Greg A. Woods) wrote on 21.08.00 in <20000821152405.BD9D688@???>:
> [ On , August 19, 2000 at 17:16:00 (+0200), Kai Henningsen wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: [Exim] Should vacation messages go to reply_address or
> > return_path
> >
> > woods@??? (Greg A. Woods) wrote on 13.08.00 in
> > <20000813165333.34AD18E@???>:
> >
> > > go to the $sender_address, but rather to the $reply_addresses. Note
> > > also that the SMTP envelope sender address is not a concept that RFC-822
> > > really knows anything about either (nor should it -- e-mail is transport
> > > independent!).
> >
> > Actually, it does, sort-of. The sender address appears in Return-Path:.
>
> Yes, it "may" appear there.....
RFC 821 requires that this happens. It's a MUST.
> > > I've never, ever, not once, seen '<>' appear in an automatically
> > > generated RFC-822 header, especially not in a bounce, and I can't find
> > > any evidence of it either in my RFC collection, nor in of my megabytes
> > > of archived real e-mail.
> >
> > Umm, I see lots of those in my mail, coming through Exim. You're not
> > looking very hard, it seems.
> >
> > As for RFCs, I suggest you start with 1123. A short grep suggests 788,
> > 821, 1891, 2476, 2505, 2554 might also have something to say about it.
>
> Well, as Philip later reminded me I couldn't find one because it's
> impossible for '<>' to appear in any legal RFC-822 conforming header....
Return-Path: is not a "legal RFC-822 conforming header"? Mr. Crocker would
be very astonished to hear that.
> Perhaps you've got your Exim configured in such a way that it's
> generating illegal headers?
