Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!philapd!ssp15!jos
From: jos@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Jos Vos)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Replying to mail... is there a general theory?
Message-ID: <1140@ssp15.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Date: 12 Jul 89 11:08:26 GMT
References: <3483@portia.Stanford.EDU> <207@unmvax.unm.edu> <1581@marvin.Solbourne.COM>
Organization: Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems, The Netherlands
Lines: 20

In article <1581@marvin.Solbourne.COM> dce@Solbourne.com (David Elliott) writes:

>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.

The From: field *should* contain an absolute domain address
(in the ideal situation) in its whole life (i.e. already
on the sender's system).
In that case nobody has (and *may*) change this field.

-- 
-- ######   Jos Vos   ######   Internet   jos@idca.tds.philips.nl   ######
-- ######             ######   UUCP         ...!mcvax!philapd!jos   ######