nisse@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) wrote 21 Oct 2004 16:00:52 +0200:
| > What's the relation between the terms "forward path" and "envelope | > recipient"? The draft says "forward path" nowadays. | | "Forward-path" is the term used in the syntax description in RFC | 2821, "4.1.2 Command Argument Syntax":
Ah, my searching skills were obviously temporarily out of service earlier today.
| Reverse-path = Path | Forward-path = Path | Path = "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] Mailbox ">" | A-d-l = At-domain *( "," A-d-l ) | ; Note that this form, the so-called "source route", | ; MUST BE accepted, SHOULD NOT be generated, and SHOULD be | ; ignored. | At-domain = "@" domain | | So I just borrowed the term from there. Is "Envelope sender" better?
Disregarding the fact that it means exactly the opposite from what we want to say, you mean? ;-)
Isn't the term mostly historical, when "bang paths" and other magic helped people routing their mail in mysterious ways? Recipient is more clear to me. Only slightly awkward since it probably should be prepended with "envelope" to clearify that it isn't what's in To, Cc or other message headers.