Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
From: Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: smtp, errors and delivery
Message-ID: <05Mar84.111651.EN0C@CMU-CS-A>
Date: Mon, 5-Mar-84 11:16:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.364
Posted: Mon Mar  5 11:16:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Mar-84 04:31:56 EST
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Lines: 20
To: Mark Crispin 
Cc: Header-People@MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: "Mark Crispin's message of 5 Mar 84 04:09-EST"

Mark,

I didn't even know that TOPS-20 was in the crowd of people doing
this way of handling rejected "mail from" commands. It looks
like it is a defacto standard then since Unix, ITS and TOPS-20
do it.

I don't understand why people use this mechanism if they want
their users to have their mail delivered or get an error
message back. I consider the risk too high to take the
chance with using a null-return or no-return path....sigh.

Maybe it is the case that these same systems parse the headers
if they don't have a return-path and try to use the address??
If so the picture doesn't seem so bleak afterall.

Well back to work....I not going to bug anyone except for
people around CMU.

-Rudy