Re: "<>" bogus mail from??

[Jeff Hayward]

You've misread the spelling of 'MUST' in sections 5.2.9 and 5.3.3 of
RFC 1123.

-- Jeff Hayward

On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, ari wrote:

  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