Patrick Ben Koetter a écrit :
> 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.
>
> That in turn might mean a server must accept such senders, but I'd rather see
> that written down.
>
> I did find one reference though on
> <http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-dsn.php>: "An empty reverse path MUST be
> supported." (5.2.9 of RFC1123).
>
This is a controversial issue.
"
The syntax shown in RFC-821 for the MAIL FROM: command omits
the case of an empty path: "MAIL FROM: <>" (see RFC-821 Page
15). An empty reverse path MUST be supported.
"
My reading is that the second sentence ("An empty reverse path...")
refers to the previous one ("... omits ..."). That is, it is here to
correct an omission. It does not say that an smtp server must accept
mail from the null sender.
however, if you reject the null sender (systematically), then you will
block notifications (NDRs, MDNs, DSNs), and these are part of smtp.
> It that still valid? Does anybody have a newer reference?
>
> Thanks,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
