Quoting Ben Beuchler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 02:23:22PM -0700, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
> > They are rejecting the NULL ("<>") sender address. Tell 'em to go
> > read RFC 821 and 1123!
>
> Ah HA! And I'm assuming qmail only uses NULL senders on bounces? As RFC
> 821 suggests, of course...
Naturally... :) If they balk, clue them in to the fact that they
aren't getting bounces from any network that has external mail
gateways that forward _all_ email to internal hosts, ala AOL. A lot
of dimwitted admins seem to think our mail server is broken, since
they get bounces from "everyone else." :)
RFC1123:
5.3.3 Reliable Mail Receipt
When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a
"250 OK" message in response to DATA), it is accepting
responsibility for delivering or relaying the message. It must
take this responsibility seriously, i.e., it MUST NOT lose the
message for frivolous reasons, e.g., because the host later
crashes or because of a predictable resource shortage.
If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message,
the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification
message. This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>")
reverse path in the envelope; see Section 3.6 of RFC-821. The
recipient of this notification SHOULD be the address from the
envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). However, if
this address is null ("<>"), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a
notification. If the address is an explicit source route, it
SHOULD be stripped down to its final hop.
