Andreas Metzler wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:47:44PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > There you have it. It's the "source mailbox", and while it can be > > used to report errors, it can *not only* be used to report errors. > > I'm relieved that the RFC doesn't contradict my common sense > > understanding of a "sender address". > > I does not confirm it.
Confirm what? My common sense understanding of a sender address? Hopefully RFCs wouldn't have to define *everything* they relate to, since common sense already defines a lot of it. Don't you agree on my understanding of a sender address (or source mailbox) being the address (or source mailbox) the sender sends from? If so, please state it explicitly, so I have something I can argue against. :-) > There is no such thing as "the domain part of the <reverse-path> > should/has to/must be identical to the domain name of the machine the > mail was written on originally", it just states that <reverse-path> > can be used to report errors to. RFC 2821 may not state that. So the cited proposals (like SPF, etc.) were created as proposed amendments to RFC 2821, and *they* do demand that -- for domains that have been configured that way, not for other domains. So where do you see a problem?
