Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!skat.usc.edu!blarson
From: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: A plea for sanity (Errors-to:)
Message-ID: <6959@oberon.USC.EDU>
Date: 14 Feb 88 21:02:05 GMT
References: <11806@brl-adm.ARPA>
Sender: nobody@oberon.USC.EDU
Reply-To: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson)
Organization: USC AIS, Los Angeles
Lines: 20

In article <11806@brl-adm.ARPA> TVR%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Tovar) writes:
[Quote from previous article:]
>     Errors-To: is completely unnecessary if SMTP is correctly implemented.

>I will disagree strongly on this point.

There are many incorrect implementations out there.  I fail to see the
need a need for an aditional errors-to field when existing
imlementations fail to use the one that is present already.  Yes, it
is an envalope field, which means the envalope cannot be disposed of
before successful delivery.  If there are gateways that can't pass
envalope data in an envalope, they should be the ones responsible for
puting the information elsewhere.  Since they don't follow the
internet standards, why change the internet standards? Adding another
field does not help, since the problem mailers that can't follow the
current rules are the ones least likly to update to a new standard.
Bob Larson	Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu	blarson@skat.usc.edu
Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson
Prime mailing list:	info-prime-request%fns1@ecla.usc.edu
			oberon!fns1!info-prime-request