On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, ari wrote:
> Section 5.3.3 does indeed state that the null return-path _is_ required for
> use, however references itself with section 3.6 of RFC 821, which is the actual
> specification of the SMTP protocol. Section 3.6 of RFC 821, however, does
> _not_ state that the null return-path is required when sending bounces. It
> clearly states that the null return-path is _one_ option:
5.3.3 of RFC 1123 amends 3.6 of RFC 821 stating "<>" is the _one_
and _only_ option.
This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path
in the envelope; see Section 3.6 of RFC-821.
> > Yes, all mailers should allow this, even though many spammers abuse it.
Perhaps I am not spammed by the right set of spammers but the amount of
spams having a null return-path I have ever received is less than 1 % of
the the total.
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
