Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA10436; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 06:22:45 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.3); Thu, 19 Oct 1995 06:20:01 -0400 Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA10161; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 06:19:58 -0400 From: Message-Id: <199510191019.GAA10161@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) id <16176-0@domen.uninett.no>; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:19:31 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95 To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: About bounce messages..... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:19:27 +0100 Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no Hi, just thought I'd drop this on the list: When we rewrite 822, I would add a sentence that says that when bouncing a message, the MTA MUST include some indication of the failing address. I discovered while flaming a bounce like this: ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- ----- Original message follows ----- that there currently isn't a paragraph that I can find in 821 or 1123 that says it must be so; I guess it was "too obvious to mention".... harald A