Greg A. Woods wrote:
But I never saw a person using empty sender and cannot think of a
reason why somebody should do it.
I guess you've never seen me manually testing MTAs with telnet then!
;-)
Well, using is not testing. Anyway, I rarely use <> for testing, it's
only a special case.
A person sending mail but not wanting to receive any replies is
sounds really weird to me.
We're not talking about replies here -- we're talking about error
notifications, non-delivery reports, vacation messages, and the like.
Persons without a mailbox send me error notifications etc.? I don't
think so.
These days there are sometimes other ways to avoid getting error
notifications and other DSNs and such, but even now there's no more
reliable way than to use a null return path.
*sigh* I wonder if you even read mails completely. Or maybe my wording
is so bad, I don't know.
Last try: If [EMAIL PROTECTED] never sends any mail, he will never receive DSNs.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
