Message-Id: <199603272126.PAA14885@ornette.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: ckk@uchicago.edu
From: ckk@uchicago.edu
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Headers and agents 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:37:32 +0100."
             <199603272041.PAA00789@CS.UTK.EDU> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:26:53 -0600
Sender: ckk@ornette.uchicago.edu

> On Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:03:42 -0500 Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> said:
> 
> >there are a  couple of rules that MTA implementors  in particular should
> >be  aware of....you  must rewrite  the  envelope return  address and  so
> >forth...that should be documented.

Again let me reiterate my suggestion for an explicit "the SMTP envelope return path should NEVER be used automatically in a recipient's reply message" (same form as similar warning about Sender field mailbox, currently in RFC 822 section 4.4.4). Necessarily accompanied by a of RFC 1123 section 5.3.7 where you clearly say that a gateway MUST NOT force the MUA to use the SMTP envelope return path in a recipient's reply message.

Also if you do settle your disagreements about "mailing lists" and do include explicit statements about them, do you want to explicitly mention the conventions of "owner-foo" and "foo-request" addresses pertaining to address "foo"?

Chris Koenigsberg