On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Seems people have problems wrapping their tiny little brains around the > idea that <> is useful for other things - in this particular case, it > was a mailing list manager that sent out all the "Please reply to this > message to confirm your request" messages with <> specifically because > it did *not* want to hear back if there was a problem (as the request > would just time out all by itself anyhow).
I don't think that is a valid use of a null return path. RFC 2821 section 4.5.5 says: All other types of messages (i.e., any message which is not required by a standards-track RFC to have a null reverse-path) SHOULD be sent with with a valid, non-null reverse-path. and the list of standards-track specifications is just DSNs (RFC 3461), MDNs (RFC 3798), and vacation messages (RFC 3834). Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ NORTH FITZROY SOLE LUNDY FASTNET: NORTHEAST BACKING NORTHWEST 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6. SLIGHT OR MODERATE, OCCASIONALLY ROUGH. SHOWERS. GOOD.
