Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id PAA18399; Wed, 31 May 1995 15:51:25 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 31 May 1995 15:51:24 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from wintermute.imsi.com by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id PAA18391; Wed, 31 May 1995 15:51:20 -0400
Received: from relay.imsi.com by wintermute.imsi.com
      id PAA26324; Wed, 31 May 1995 15:51:17 -0400
Received: from snark.imsi.com by relay.imsi.com
	id PAA27510; Wed, 31 May 1995 15:51:17 -0400
Received: by snark.imsi.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA20310; Wed, 31 May 95 15:51:16 EDT
Message-Id: <9505311951.AA20310@snark.imsi.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
Cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: getting started 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 1995 15:36:21 EDT."
             <199505311936.PAA12316@wilma.cs.utk.edu> 
Reply-To: perry@imsi.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 15:51:16 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>


Keith Moore writes:
> > 3. What should be done with the current return-receipt-to mechanism?
> 
> I suggest: "MTAs MUST NOT honor the Return-Receipt-To header field".

Granted the mechanism should be replaced, but it has saved me many
hours over the years in debugging problems. When its replaced and the
replacement is universally deployed, I'll go along with what you've
suggested, but lets not shoot the cow while we are still milking it,
okay?

Perry