Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <9505312033.AA20433@snark.imsi.com>
To: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU, Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: getting started 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 1995 22:00:06 +0200."
             <199505312010.QAA20373@CS.UTK.EDU> 
Reply-To: perry@imsi.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 16:33:39 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>


Eric Thomas writes:
> On Wed, 31 May 1995 15:55:21 -0400 Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu> said:
> 
> >What I meant to say is that if a gateway is set up such that it destroys
> >the envelope  FROM information, that  it must not generate  any messages
> >which  would be  sent the  address which  was destroyed  (e.g. bounces).
> >Alternately the  system may direct such  messages to a human  for manual
> >processing.
> 
> It's  still  not implementable  with  typical  non-Internet mail  systems
> (other than  X.400). Simply imagine  a reduced version of  RFC822 without
> "Reply-To:", "Sender:", "Resent-*" and without the MAIL FROM: field. Just
> "From:" and this  is where everything goes - bounces,  replies, acks, you
> name it.  This is what  the gateways  have to deal  with.

In practice, the garbage that I see comes from gateways, not end
systems, and is the result of stupidity on the part of implementors.

However, in the case that you mention, there are possibilities. You
could, for instance, set the "From" equivalent in the header to the
envelope "from" and you just enclose the actual RFC822 message in the
body. You *never* set things up so bounces will go to the wrong address.

Perry