Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)

[Peter Ziobrzynski <pzi@netmediatech.com>]

Matti Aarnio wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
>         I have thought hard wether or not to do what
>         I consider 'sendmailism'; namely removing the
>         current 'To: some-comment:;' being generated
>         at the router when no 'To:' header exists, and
>         replace that by adding sendmail-like 'Apparently-To:'
>         header at the delivery time at the mailbox (and
>         perhaps sm) channels.
> 
>         At the use of the physical delivery address there
>         are 'interesting' side-effects when somebody uses
>         procmail et.al. things running on pipes, and the
>         "user"-field on the receiver definitions tells
>         that one...
> 
>         Any opinnions ?
> 
> /Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>

I would vote for it. It provides some additional information on
how the message was delivered.

The same function but in reverse provides RFC821 'Return-Path:'
which should be added at the final delivery to record <reverse-path>
of the protocol - but frequently is not.
-- 
Peter Ziobrzynski, netMedia Technology Inc. <pzi@netmediatech.com>
204 Richmond St. #300, Toronto Ontario, Canada, M5V-1V6
tel.(416) 596-8520x242, fax.(416) 596-8610