Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-ID: <EjwjsKe00WBwEqyc9p@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 15:25:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Fwd: notification message
References: <199502012332.AAA01851@dale.uninett.no>
	<UjADzvS00WBwMObBNd@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<sjAFlrW00WBwIFAJBb@andrew.cmu.edu>
Beak: Is

An old mailext message that is relevant to this group.

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

Message-ID: <sjAFlrW00WBwIFAJBb@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu,  2 Feb 1995 12:55:03 -0500 (EST)
From: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
To: mailext@cs.wisc.edu
Subject: notification message
In-Reply-To: <UjADzvS00WBwMObBNd@andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <199502012332.AAA01851@dale.uninett.no>
	<UjADzvS00WBwMObBNd@andrew.cmu.edu>
Beak: is Not

In 1123, section 5.3.3, there is the requirement:

	The recipient of this notification SHOULD be the address from
	the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line).

Could someone familliar with the history fill me in on why this is a
SHOULD and not a MUST?

I see a lot of confusion in the Internet as to where to send bounce
messages.  There are a lot of people who think they should be sent to
Errors-To:, witness some of the recent traffic on the RISKS Digest.
I think it would be a good thing for the IETF to take a stronger
stance on this issue.

What do people think of the following proposal for the 822 AS:

* upgrade the SHOULD to a MUST
* explicitly mention Errors-To: as nonconforming with above rule
* expand the use of the envelope return address to "notifications",
  not just "error messages".

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up