On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 20:24 +0800, W B Hacker wrote: > Ok - but that has been 'masseged' and is no longer a valid 'bounce'. > > The original, 'valid' or RFC-compliant bounce has already been accepted onto > your server. > > Sorting out the expansion & forwarding rules is now *your* responsibility, > not > that of the RFC (or 'default' Exim either).
as far as I know, there is no requirement that messages with an empty sender address should be handled differently than others. please provide chapter and verse if you have a relevant citation. > One of the oldest of tools - done in an MR/2-ICE MUA, for example, is to > 'attach' the incoming to a new message, subject "Forwarded" and send THAT > onward. Voila - no longer an empty header (though, absent a footer, the body > might be). the SPF crowd also says traditional forwarding is all wrong and needs to be fixed, but that view doesn't influence how SMTP actually works one yotta. -- Kjetil T. -- ## 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/
