Ian Eiloart wrote: >> Yes, but RFC2821 didn't copy the "MUST support" thing. (What can we >> learn from this?) > > Well, if you aren't going to support the syntax, then there's not > much point playing the game.
There's still a difference between supporting the syntax and saying "no bounce mails here". The latter *might* be ok for systems that don't send mail, and therefor should never get any bounces. Allthough I think refusing the empty sender is just plain stupid in most (if not all) cases, I'm not that sure RFCs really require a 250 response to "MAIL FROM:<>". 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/
