It is in fact one of those RFC's. No doubt about that. In general I
have had more false-positives if I enable the option to refuse NUL
senders. Almost all MTA's will use NUL to send delivery failures
back to reduce the potential for mail loops cause be auto-responders
or MTA's bouncing bounces.
I have not been very successful in finding a way to filter on NUL senders
either. However the amount of SPAM I have received from NUL has dropped
considerably over the last year so I haven't considered it a problem.
My opeenion would be to not check this option and just attempt to filter out
the garbage after it lands.
Dusty
----- Original Message -----
From: "David V. Brenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 10:35 PM
Subject: [IMail Forum] Null sender stuffiness
> At least once a month, some Unix guru extraordinaire writes to me
> complaining that our server will not accept mail from his server because
we
> block null senders. Their complaint is always the same - that by not
> allowing null senders, we are failing to adhere to some long list of RFCs
> that the other party is so intimately familiar with that he must recite it
> in his sleep. Perhaps what annoys me the most is it's always some Unix
type
> who delights in pointing out that onyl Windows-based mail servers even
allow
> such an option as to block null senders.
>
> What are other IMail users doing? If the feature is so loathesome and
goes
> against the RFC grain, why is it even offered? I mean, these guys feel so
> strongly about this that I have even had a few block all SMTP traffic from
> my server.
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
