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 CrispinCc: 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