My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path" as in the following
snippet of campaign emails from Home Depot, Martha Stewart and Sears:
From - Mon Jun 20 08:43:03 2016
X-Account-Key: account15
X-UIDL: UID1962-1324328699
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-path: <bounce-21178_HTML-212410161-2947777-10142840-2@???>
From - Tue Jun 21 14:39:36 2016
X-Account-Key: account15
X-UIDL: UID1969-1324328699
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-path: <EverydayFood@???>
From - Mon Jun 20 08:43:02 2016
X-Account-Key: account15
X-UIDL: UID1961-1324328699
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-path: <sears2.5645@???>
So is "Return-path" supposed to be respected? Because the company I was
speaking of insists it's appropriate to send bounces to something other
than "Return-path" usually the "From" or "Reply-to".
On 06/28/2016 03:24 PM, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Chip <jeffschips@???> (Di 28 Jun 2016 17:18:54 CEST):
>> I know this question is not specifically germane to Exim but everyone on
>> this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies.
>>
>> If a receiver of campaign emails (that promotes itself as an email security
>> service) sends bounces to "reply-to" rather than "bounces-to" as a policy
>> despite bounces-to present in all campaign emails headers, would this be
>> considered a violation of RFCs?
> Bounces should go to the Envelope sender of the triggering message.
> The Envelope sender doesn't need to be identical to the Reply-To: or the
> address found in the From: header. (Reply-To and From may even contain
> more than one address, the Envelope sender carries exactly one address
> (which may be empty, in case it's a bounce already)))
>
> I've never heard of a Bounces-To Header.
>
> Best regards from Dresden/Germany
> Viele Grüße aus Dresden
> Heiko Schlittermann
>
>
