Of what i remember from RFC 821, the null reverse-path is _not_ required, but
is rather mentioned as "one way" to get around the "bounce of a bounce"
problem.
Yes, all mailers should allow this, even though many spammers abuse it. True,
rejecting it can be considered breaking RFC-compliance. But it is by no means
required for use.
Or maybe i'm nitpicking.
ari
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 12:25:01PM -0600, Ronny Haryanto wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm just wondering if
> >
> > MAIL FROM: <>
> >
> > in SMTP session is valid or not? From what I understand is that qmail
>
> Yes it's valid, it's actually even the required sender of a bounce.
>
> > uses that to send bounce messages. However some sites (particulary
> > ones using IMail v5) rejects that sender saying "501 bogus mail from".
>
> They suck.
>
> > I don't care if the sender doesn't receive the bounce back, heck I
> > tried to send bounce message but they rejects it. It's just annoying,
> > especially if this is valid, not bogus.
>
> It is valid, and required, to prevent bounces bouncing :)
>
> > I have contacted a rep from IMail, but no response. Here's the
> > website: http://www.ipswitch.com/products/IMail_Server/index.asp
>
> It's ipswitch. It ends with .asp. I'm not touching that with a forty-foot
> pole (no don't start a holy war on me now :)
>
> Greetz, Peter.
> --
> Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/pretending coder
> |
> | 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot;
> | C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.'
> | Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++
--
.------------------------Ari Edelkind--------------------------.
Unix Systems and Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Health Research Institute (212) Phone: 578 0822
New York, NY [USA] Fax : 576 8442
`--------------------------------------------------------------'
