Actually, Len, I think my logic was flawed from the outset (at least I
admitted that I didn't have a test server to try it out on ;). Closer
reading of RFC 1869 shows me that the welcome message (220 response) on an
ESMTP server isn't actually required to have the string "with ESMTP"--but
all of the ones that I've seen do have it, probably for consistency with
the requirement that "with ESMTP" appear in a Received: header on all
messages passing through the server; there's no mandate for this to be in
the 220 itself, though it gives a heads-up. It's the EHLO response (250
response) that the MUA is looking at for details of supported extensions,
and there's no way that I can see to change the 250s in Imail (though in
other MTA it's possible) other than the SMTP AUTH and VRFY toggles.
All of this doesn't even come close to my bigger error, which was thinking
that we were talking about the Delivery Status Notification ESMTP extension
(RFC 1891-94) in the first place. I don't think we are, since I couldn't
make my Outlook generate an RFC-compliant DSN request in an SMTP
conversation. What it's very happy to do is (a) add a Message Disposition
Notification (RFC 2298) request via a Disposition-Notification-To: header,
which is the cause of Outlook, Eudora, and OE's "Do you want to send a
receipt?" popup, or (b) add the outdated Return-Receipt-To: header, a
non-ESMTP server-side directive which is not supported by Imail.
SOOOOOOOO...*in theory*...all one needs to do is use Info Manager to catch
all messages with Disposition-Notification-To: in the header and send back
a polite message like "We are sorry, but to avoid generating a huge amount
of traffic, this mailing list does not support Return Receipt
Requests. Please resend your post with this option off."
Thanks for making me look deeper. Someone write back!
Sandy
P.S. Add'l caveat: Netscape brags that Messenger sends RFC 1891-94 DSN
*and* MDN requests, unlike Outlook, Eudora, and OE. So if someone's using
Netscape and asks for a DSN (not an MDN), since my original hypothesis
about 220/250 responses was wrong, Imail would respond
accurately. However, I'm not sure what "accurately" means--if they'd get
ONE response or one from everyone--not sure what IMAILSRV considers a
"mailbox." RFC 1891 does warn of the dangers of DSNs and certain list
implementations. But again, I'd guess that users are asking for MDNs, not
DSNs, and the Info Manager rule will hopefully trap such requests.
At 02:19 AM 6/19/2001, you wrote:
>>If you really want to stop this at the server side, I think you can
>>change the SMTP Welcome Message to take out the "ESMTP" announcement. I
>>believe this would effectively disable the ability to request delivery
>>notifications
>
>I think it will also preclude SMTP AUTH, which most Imail servers need to
>provide.
>
>Len
>
>
>
>http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training
>http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com : ISC BIND 8.2.4 for NT4 & W2K
>http://IMGate.MEIway.com : Build free, hi-perf, anti-abuse mail gateways
>
>
>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be
>removed from this list.
>
>An Archive of this list is available at:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
