Ian Eiloart wrote: > --On 7 August 2006 09:33:29 +0100 Dave Evans > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> RFC1123: >> The syntax shown in RFC-821 for the MAIL FROM: command omits the >> case of an empty path: "MAIL FROM: <>" (see RFC-821 Page 15). An >> empty reverse path MUST be supported.
Thanks. Quite far-fetched, but at least it does say MUST. > And, while 821 omits it, 2821 doesn't: Yes, but RFC2821 didn't copy the "MUST support" thing. (What can we learn from this?) > 4.5.5 Messages with a null reverse-path > .... > Implementors of automated email processors should be careful to make > sure that the various kinds of messages with null reverse-path are > handled correctly, in particular such systems SHOULD NOT reply to > messages with null reverse-path. > > I think it's easy to make the case that rejecting all null-sender > email in order to avoid some spam bounces is not being "careful to > make sure that the various kinds of messages with null reverse-path > are handled correctly" Well, this heavily depends on the possible values for "correctly" in RFC2822... >:o/ lg, daniel -- ## 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/
