Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/8/2014 11:35 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
But if it doesn't look enough like a valid email, for it to be processed
by their SW, I could see it bouncing... but not anything under my
control.
Not sure what to tell you, sorry. Appears to be an ISP issue to me.
You might consider using something like a free gmail account instead
thought that might be out of the frying pan and into the fire.
---
Actually they are doing the right thing.
I brought this up on this list before, and some
people don't realize that an invalid 'return address' should
be rejected.
If something doesn't have a valid return path -- it should
be rejected with a Permanent error:
(RFC 5321 p 18:
The <reverse-path> portion of the first or only argument contains the source
mailbox (between "<" and ">" brackets), which can be used to report errors (see
Section 4.2 for a discussion of error reporting). If accepted, the SMTP server
returns a "250 OK" reply. If the mailbox specification is not acceptable for
some reason, the server MUST return a reply indicating whether the failure is
permanent .
Accepting bogus email with invalid return paths only helps
spammers and no ISP should accept such... i.e. it says if the
retuen path is not acceptable for some reason, the server MUST reply
with a failure. If the message doesn't have a valid return
address, then an ISP won't be able to comply with the stated
"MUST" requirements.
In this case, the bounce message comes from the MAILER-DAEMON at
apache.org with a return path of "<>". That isn't a valid return
path.
