On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:50:41PM +0100, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * Victor Duchovni <[email protected]>:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> >
> > > I was looking for a (current) RFC section that says SMTP servers MUST
> > > accept
> > > messages sent by the null sender "<>", but almost all I found were
> > > references
> > > that say notifications MUST be sent as null sender.
> >
> > The empty sender is a valid sender. It must not be rejected as
> > syntactically invalid.
> >
> > It is unwise to reject mail from the empty sender, but nobody can force
> > you do accept it. You can reject any mail transaction you see fit to
> > reject for any reason.
> >
> > If you do reject all bounces, sites may choose to reject your mail,
> > because you are not interested in being informed of delivery problems
> > (and are unable to respond appropriately).
>
> I agree completely with you. What I am looking for is a RFC that says the
> empty sender MUST be accepted. It seems so natural to me to do that and
> everybody says it's at least 'best practice' to do that that I was absolutely
> shure its am RFC MUST. Just like the requiremnt to accept "Postmaster" etc.
I can imagine any RFC telling you that you MUST accept certain messages.
A blanket reject of <> is particularly unwise, as this is not a particular
bad sender, but RFCs don't tell you what policies are stupid, they
document protocol standards.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
