On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 14:45, dman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 10:37:46AM +0000, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> | In terms of headers, Return-Path: would be the one to go for.
>
> Well, in your message that I'm replying to, there is no Return-Path:
> header. Maybe procmail sticks that in or something (I'm not using
> procmail), but I don't know where it comes from.
Return-path: is added by the MTA on final delivery. For exim its a
transport option, AFAIR its a transport flag for sendmail (but I haven't
used sendmail for a long time).
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Phone: +44 1423 850000 Fax +44 1423 858866 ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
