[imp] Re: "Return-Path" header?

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at bigworm.colorado.edu>:

> It appears that we should strip out the existing Return-Path header since,
> obviously, we don't want these failure messages for example to go to the
> original sender.  However, this would violate a literal reading of RFC
> 2822 - since NO other fields are supposed to be changed.
> 
> I think I will go ahead and make the change, and if anyone else has an
> opinion on this, it would be great to hear.

It is a tough call, and I can see both sides.  My feeling is that it is
okay for you to do either, but which ever you do needs to be documented
with the above argument and a clear statement of what is being done.

Not sure where to document it.  At least in the source code.
 
> michael

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

Why get even? Get odd!