On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Tony Finch writes: > > > > 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). > > But 3461 (bottom two paragraphs of page 13) says any message can have <> > as sender when it reaches the recipient.
Null return paths have never been particularly consistent or clearly scoped :-) But still, RFC 3461 doesn't say that arbitrary programs can send email from <> because they think it would be neat. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ MALIN HEBRIDES: NORTH VEERING NORTHEAST 5 TO 7, OCCASIONALLY GALE 8. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. GOOD.
