Well the RFC's are Request for Comments (Guidelines) not laws nor rules. Most servers try to adhere to these guidelines to ensure the successful delivery/return of email. If you refuse NUL senders you'll get listed in an ignorant database called something like ignorant.org (which FWIW any email server rejecting email on this test alone would be 'ignorant'). Also you probably won't get any return receipt request for email that was sent requesting such receipt. Bounced and/or rejected messages sometimes do get returned from MTA's with <> NUL as the sender. I believe spammers have used the ole <> NUL sender trick for many years and will continue to do so as long as 'we' honest email admins try to adhere to these guides.
</soapbox> ~Rick > I'm just curious as to why the RFC rules do not like not > allowing a null > sender as any email that is rejected usualy comes from a > valid mail server > and I have never seen one come in without an email address > attached to it. > > When I turn on deny null sender about 20% of my spam go's > away and my mail > server works alot less hard. > ___________________________________________________________________ Virus Scanned and Filtered by http://www.FamHost.com E-Mail System. To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
