On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 02:31:55PM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: | | Subject: Re: wierd returnings | Date: Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 09:48:14AM -0400 | | In reply to:Mike | | Quoting Mike([EMAIL PROTECTED]): | > Ian Perry wrote: | > > Mario, | > > | > > Why have you used MY SERVER inertia.com.au as your return address in your | > > email ? | > | > He didn't. I looked through the headers of his message and saw *no* mention | > anywhere of your server's name. I did, however, see mention of my ISP's | > address in a few places that it shouldn't have been - namely | > | > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 09 06:33:35 2001 | > Return-path:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > ... | > Sender: mario <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | > I suspect the From and the Return-Path: lines might be done by the Debian | > listserver as a bounce detection mechanism, but I'm not sure. The Sender: | > line, however, is most definitely wrong. | > | I agree, the question is who. His message has different headers for | me, and they look OK???? | | >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 09 09:49:30 2001 | --- NO Return-path: at all | Sender: mario <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | X-Envelope-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the sender's address has no domain, many MTAs/MDAs will add the local domain to the address to complete it. The mail really shouldn't get out of the originating system without first being completed, but it happens sometimes. Spammers in particular like it. The from header with 'bounce' in it is created by the list manager so it can keep track of bounces or something like that. -D
