> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:41:17 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "David F. Skoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] Postmaster, <>, and a Backup MX
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> {snip}
>
> The backup MX is violating a SHOULD requirement of RFC 2821:
>
> 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.
>
> It seems like the backup MX is doing something similar to
> md_check_against_smtp_server. It should use the real MAIL FROM: address,
> not <>, to perform this check.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
Well, like you said, this is a SHOULD, not a MUST. And as someone who
makes products compliant to international specifications, there is a big
difference between SHOULD and MUST (most of us shoot for, but never quite
implement the SHOULDs).
This is a backup MX that I have no control over. I actually discovered it
when I was investigating my sendmail logs. Anytime my server received an
email from my backup MX, I would see a lone entry similar to this
(modified, of course):
from=<>, size=0, class=0, nrcpts=1, proto=SMTP, daemon=MTA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [220.169.132.45]
After playing around with a telnet session and the backup MX, I figured
out what it was doing. Whenever I did a "rcpt to:" command on the backup
MX, that log above would appear.
Truthfully, I don't really care how they are doing it, as long as I
understand how it impacts my system.
Troy Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca
MIMEDefang mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
