Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!stan!dce
From: dce@Solbourne.COM (David Elliott)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Replying to mail... is there a general theory?
Message-ID: <1581@marvin.Solbourne.COM>
Date: 12 Jul 89 00:31:10 GMT
References: <3483@portia.Stanford.EDU> <207@unmvax.unm.edu>
Reply-To: dce@Solbourne.com (David Elliott)
Organization: Solbourne Computer Inc., Longmont, Colorado
Lines: 19

In article <207@unmvax.unm.edu> mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes:
>Actually, you should use, in order of preference, the following:
>  Reply-To:
>  From:
>  Sender:

What about Return-Path:?  I modified my MH configuration files
to prefer that because it seems to be right more of the time
than any of the others.

For example, when stuff gets sent through sites like pyramid
and nbires, the From: line gets left alone, but Return-Path:
is modified.  The problem is that other sites may modify From:,
so the path might appear to be uunet!mips.com!mdove, when the
actual path taken would have been mips!pyramid!uunet!nbires.

-- 
David Elliott		dce@Solbourne.COM
			...!{boulder,nbires,sun}!stan!dce