tobold.org

correct • elegant • free

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ PP mail drop format

Return Receipt To and Re: Standard Mail Headers ▻

Receipts

In article <NV89-NUN.94Feb9095724@mumrik.nada.kth.se>,
Nicklas Ungman <nv89-nun@mumrik.nada.kth.se> wrote:
>Apparently "Return-Receipt-To:" is a de-facto standard

If the IETF had any interest in undocumented `de facto standards', they
wouldn't make it so easy for anyone to write an RFC.

`Return-Receipt-To:' is a sendmail-specific bodge.  Please don't use it.

There is quite a lot of ongoing work to define and implement a workable
receipt mechanism for the Internet.  `Return-Receipt-To:' isn't it.

>                                                        with
>obvious syntax and semantics.

Sorry, but neither are obvious to me.  For example: may the field
contain more than one address?  Should receipts be sent using the null
return-path?  What should you do with it when you are gatewaying a
message into X.400, UUCP, the JNT mail format?

Tim.
--
Tim Goodwin | "scanf()... usually does something almost but not
PIPEX Ltd   | completely unlike what you want" -- Chris Torek.

Original headers:

From: tim@pipex.net (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Receipts
Date: 11 Feb 1994 14:19:12 -0000
Organization: PIPEX Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Message-ID: <2jg450$bj2@tank.pipex.net>
References: <NV89-NUN.94Feb9095724@mumrik.nada.kth.se>

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ PP mail drop format

Return Receipt To and Re: Standard Mail Headers ▻