headers
Nicolas.QUENTIN | 8 Apr 2003 10:46

About the use of the "return-receipt-to" ....


Hi !

I'm working on technical problems about the interoperability between
different MTAs and i have a very simple question.

What is the "return-receipt-to" field ?

Some MTA (eg : Lotus) interpret that field as a MDN request. Is it legal and
clearly defined in RFC ?

Thanks for your reply 

Nicolas QUENTIN
THALES COMMUNICATIONS
Tél : 01.41.30.49.54
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Matti Aarnio | 8 Apr 2003 11:03
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: About the use of the "return-receipt-to" ....


On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 10:46:08AM +0200, Nicolas.QUENTIN <at> fr.thalesgroup.com wrote:
> Hi !
> 
> I'm working on technical problems about the interoperability between
> different MTAs and i have a very simple question.
> 
> What is the "return-receipt-to" field ?

  See  RFC 3464  (and RFC 2076)

> Some MTA (eg : Lotus) interpret that field as a MDN request.
> Is it legal and clearly defined in RFC ?

  Completely non-standard.

> Thanks for your reply 
> 
> Nicolas QUENTIN
> THALES COMMUNICATIONS
> Tél : 01.41.30.49.54

--

-- 
/Matti Aarnio	<mea <at> nic.funet.fi>
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Keith Moore | 8 Apr 2003 14:28
Picon

Re: About the use of the "return-receipt-to" ....


> > What is the "return-receipt-to" field ?
> 
>   See  RFC 3464  (and RFC 2076)
> 
> > Some MTA (eg : Lotus) interpret that field as a MDN request.
> > Is it legal and clearly defined in RFC ?
> 
>   Completely non-standard.

not only that, but it's completely incompatible with the original use of the
field, which was to request a delivery report, not a receipt notification.

return-receipt-to fields should be ignored, or deleted.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Valdis.Kletnieks | 8 Apr 2003 19:08
Picon
Favicon

Re: About the use of the "return-receipt-to" ....

On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 08:28:02 EDT, Keith Moore said:
> 
> > > What is the "return-receipt-to" field ?
> > 
> >   See  RFC 3464  (and RFC 2076)
> > 
> > > Some MTA (eg : Lotus) interpret that field as a MDN request.
> > > Is it legal and clearly defined in RFC ?
> > 
> >   Completely non-standard.
> 
> not only that, but it's completely incompatible with the original use of the
> field, which was to request a delivery report, not a receipt notification.
> 
> return-receipt-to fields should be ignored, or deleted.

Also, apply a clue-by-four to the originating MUA, which probably intended
to use 'Disposition-Notification-To:' (RFC2298, section 2.1).
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane