trost (Bill Trost) (04/18/91)
We recently switched to smail here, and it was set up so that smail includes a Return-path: header. It also has to provide a From_ line (Berkeley mail and all that). The problem is, those of us using MH now see two "Return-Path:"s at the beginning of the file, one of which was generated by smail, the other of which is the rewritten From_ line. Is there any way to avoid this? The reason I'm including a Return-Path: is that smail insists that the From_ line should be a !-path composed of all the hosts the message went through, which is wrong for far too many of our cases. The smail folks insist that this is the "right" behavior....
wisner@ims.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) (04/19/91)
Recompile MH without RPATHS defined. The delivery agent, not the user agent, should add Return-Path: headers. Bill Wisner <wisner@ims.alaska.edu> Gryphon Gang Fairbanks AK 99775
khera@cs.duke.edu (Vivek Khera) (04/20/91)
In article <m0jTL6h-0007nCC@reed.edu> trost (Bill Trost) writes:
From: trost (Bill Trost)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mh
Date: 17 Apr 91 22:36:14 GMT
Sender: nobody@reed.UUCP
Lines: 11
how about a nice, useful return address *somewhere* in the header --
at least in a signature?
We recently switched to smail here, and it was set up so that smail
includes a Return-path: header. It also has to provide a From_ line
(Berkeley mail and all that). The problem is, those of us using MH
now see two "Return-Path:"s at the beginning of the file, one of which
was generated by smail, the other of which is the rewritten From_
line. Is there any way to avoid this?
in your MH configuration, take out the RPATHS option.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vick Khera, Gradual Student/Systems Guy Department of Computer Science
ARPA: khera@cs.duke.edu Duke University
UUCP: ...!mcnc!duke!khera Durham, NC 27706 (919) 660-6528wohler@sapwdf.UUCP (Bill Wohler) (04/22/91)
trost (Bill Trost) writes: >The reason I'm including a Return-Path: is that smail insists that the >From_ line should be a !-path composed of all the hosts the message >went through, which is wrong for far too many of our cases. The smail >folks insist that this is the "right" behavior.... bill, the header you really want to use is Reply-To. this question was more in the realm of comp.mail.headers. -- --bw ----- Bill Wohler <wohler@sap-ag.de> <sapwdf!wohler> Heidelberg Red Barons Ultimate Frisbee Team