Xref: utzoo comp.mail.sendmail:2880 comp.mail.headers:661 comp.mail.misc:5075 comp.mail.uucp:6126
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!emory!utkcs2!chili.cs.utk.edu!moore
From: moore@chili.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.headers,comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Use of Errors-To:
Message-ID: <1991Mar2.212126.3567@cs.utk.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 91 21:21:26 GMT
References: <88419@sgi.sgi.com>
Sender: usenet@cs.utk.edu (USENET News Poster)
Reply-To: moore@cs.utk.edu
Organization: Univ. of Tenn. Computer Science, Knoxville
Lines: 20

In article <88419@sgi.sgi.com>, roberts@nimrod.wpd.sgi.com (roberts) writes:
|> As sendmail currently works, errors are sent to both the sender
|> of a message, and to any addresses contained in an Errors-To:
|> header.  This seems incorrect to me.  Shouldn't the address(es)
|> contained in any Errors-To: header supercede any other addresses
|> for receiving errors?  Isn't that what the header was designed for?
|> This would seem analogous to the Reply-To: header.  Comments please.
|> 
|> 	- Robert Stephens

Errors-to: is not officially sanctioned by the RFCs, which dictate
that errors should be reported to the *envelope* From: address (which
is supposed to be copied to the Return-path: header during final
delivery).  So just because sendmail recognizes the Errors-to: header
and does something useful with it does not relieve it of its
obligation to report errors to the envelope From: address.

--
Keith Moore / U.Tenn CS Dept / 107 Ayres Hall / Knoxville TN  37996-1301
Internet: moore@cs.utk.edu      BITNET: moore@utkvx