On 10/15/2014 6:22 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/15/2014 5:06 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
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.
A discussion more suited to the EZMLM mailing list as debating it
here will not solve your issue because we are just using the
software: http://cr.yp.to/lists.html#ezmlm
----
But it is also very pertinent here..
many people think that invalid return addresses are ok to accept
for delivery -- when the RFC's are pretty clear that they MUST
be rejected at the earliest point possible -- since without
a valid return address, no failure message can be sent --
and that is required.
Personally, I hate RFC debates especially when they clearly differ from
active practice of significant portions of the internet and stop email
from flowing.
Step 1 for me is email flow.
Step 2 is following RFCs as best I can.
Step 3 is encouraging software to follow RFCs better to improve things.
I always remember the Facsimile machine specs that were written AFTER
the first working Fax machines and led to interoperability issues for
quite a while.
However, back on the issue, the RFC section you quoted has a follow-up
sentence which may discount the MUST:
Despite the apparent
scope of this requirement, there are circumstances in which the
acceptability of the reverse-path may not be determined until one or
more forward-paths (in RCPT commands) can be examined.
I hate RFCs.
Regards,
KAM
