Re: File upload frustration

>| Hm.  I did some research, and I'm going to have to side with kre on this
>| one.  RFC 2822 clearly states:
>| 
>|    A message-originating SMTP system SHOULD NOT send a message that
>|    already contains a Return-path header. 
>
>That's actually 2821, I think.

Whoops, you're right, my apologies.

>It doesn't apply because nmh is not a message originating SMTP system,
>it's just a mail user agent. 

Hm.  If you're using the SMTP mts mechanism for nmh, I'd say that it
was, actually.  I mean, it's speaking the SMTP protocol ... how is
that not a "message originator"?  It seems to fit the definition
of a "originating system" under section 2.8.3 of RFC 2821.

>Even if it did apply, a subsequent sentence in the RFC says:
>
>   SMTP servers making final delivery MAY remove Return-path headers
>   before adding their own.
>
>So it's harmless if there is a return-path header present before
>final delivery.  That's why it's SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT.
>So it is allowed.

Allowed, yes.  But certainly going against a "SHOULD NOT" is not
a recommmended practice (and I've heard repeatedly in the IETF,
"SHOULD means it should be a MUST in the next revision").  "Be