Re: [ietf-smtp] this draft is dead, was Delivered-to and Return-path

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

In article <94F55A24F02653C27537ED12@PSB> you write:
>No.  I am just suggesting that, given the obvious relationship
>between one as a forward pointer and the other as a backward
>pointer, both assigned at or after the time SMTP hands the
>message off to something other than another SMTP server (acting
>as such), an example that shows "Return-path:" as well as
>"Delivered-to:" and "Received:" would be a bit more clear and
>helpful.   Please note "suggesting" in the previous sentence,
>which I do not believe to be a synonym for "a requirement".

If I may repeat myself, that is NOT existing practice.

I was under the impression that the point of this draft was to document
the way that MTAs have used Delivered-To for over 20 years, as a trace header
that shows a message's progress through the MTA's (and sometimes MDA's) process.

Unfortunately, it is increasingly clear that is not the point of this draft.  I do
not know what the point actually is, but it would be absurd for us to write a spec
that creates a Delivered-To header that is unlike the one that already exists.

It is time for us to abandon this draft. It is so far in the weeds it can never escape.

R's,
John