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!jsol@Bbn-Unix.ARPA
From: jsol@Bbn-Unix.ARPA (Jon Solomon)
Newsgroups: net.mail.msggroup
Subject: Re: redistribution lists
Message-ID: <522@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Apr-84 11:06:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou3c.522
Posted: Mon Apr 30 11:06:35 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 1-May-84 07:57:59 EDT
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Lines: 22
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun 29 Apr 84 17:07:30-PDT
To: Mark Crispin <MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Cc: MsgGroup@BRL.ARPA

I don't believe that the mailsystem is responsible for inserting an
appropriate return path or sender to force mail system errors to 
be returned to a specific mailbox.

Using the digested lists as an example doesn't address the problems of
immediate distribution lists returning errors to the sender of each message.
Digested list maintainers can (and in most cases do) insert the return path
for their lists because all the incoming mail goes out as the body of a
message. The only part of a digest that a mail system cares about is the
header. I distribute TELECOM, and all the errors from that list go to
TELECOM-REQUEST (which is basically back to me).

In the case of immediately distributed lists, some sort of filter mechanism
must be inserted into the process of delivery to specify the correct return
path/reply-to address. A mail system can support this sort of behavior by
allowing the user to write the filter, and then run it over all mail going
to a specific address. I believe this sort of filter mechanism is
sufficiently useful that modifying the mailsystem to support it is
possible without jeapordizing portability.

I have spoken,
--Jon