This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings
Owen Rees wrote:
> --On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 16:39:41 +0000 Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> Yes, you're right. Looking at the history, it's never made it to the
>> status of an STD, but there was an IETF draft proposal (which is actually
>> one stage more advanced than an RFC):
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-
>> to-00.txt
> To quote RFC2026:
>
> 2.2 Internet-Drafts
> That, and the rest of RFC2026 makes it clear that a "internet draft" has
> lower status than an RFC - it is typically a proposal that may
> eventually turn into an RFC.
Oh, I remembered the order of progression wrong, I thought it was
RFC->draft->STD.
> On the subject of expiry:
>
> draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
> Expires: May 1998
>
> It has not been followed up for over 10 years so I think that indicates
> the status of the proposal as far as the IETF process is concerned.
True, but that's not the whole story; the IETF standards process has always
been a lagged and idealised version of reality. Still, I will reword my
earlier paragraph:
> Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing
> at the list. Any mailer that does not respect that when you hit Reply
> does not comply with common internet practice, but if it resorts to using
> the Return-Path header, it is completely incorrect. The Return-Path is
> for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort.
cheers,
DaveK