I am not sure if this is the same issue, but Zmailer bounces bounces and
sends to the From address instead of the return-path.
This is also in violation of RFC 821 (obsolete)/RFC 2821
>From RFC 2821:
If an SMTP server has accepted the task of relaying the mail and
later finds that the destination is incorrect or that the mail cannot
be delivered for some other reason, then it MUST construct an
"undeliverable mail" notification message and send it to the
originator of the undeliverable mail (as indicated by the reverse-
path). Formats specified for non-delivery reports by other standards
(see, for example, [24, 25]) SHOULD be used if possible.
This notification message must be from the SMTP server at the relay
host or the host that first determines that delivery cannot be
accomplished. Of course, SMTP servers MUST NOT send notification
messages about problems transporting notification messages. One way
to prevent loops in error reporting is to specify a null reverse-path
in the MAIL command of a notification message. When such a message
is transmitted the reverse-path MUST be set to null (see section
4.5.5 for additional discussion). A MAIL command with a null
reverse-path appears as follows:
MAIL FROM:<>
The bouncing bounces violates the "MUST NOT" part. But the sending to the
>From part only violates a "SHOULD" which is then specified in RFC1894:
>From RFC1894:
The DSN MUST be addressed (in both the message header and the
transport envelope) to the return address from the transport envelope
which accompanied the original message for which the DSN was
generated. (For a message that arrived via SMTP, the envelope return
address appears in the MAIL FROM command.)
(DSN = Delivery Status Notification, aka bounce).
http://www.zmailer.org/mhalist/2002/msg00896.html
The thread includes a patch to make it compliant with RFC2821, but I
haven't seen a patch to make it compliant with optional RFC1894.
> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:04:13 -0700
> From: Jason R. Mastaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How are you.
>
> Nick Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ah, I now understand. I was recently wondering what the chance was
> > of this kind of thing happening. I guess I now know...
>
> I guess it depends on how many sites are using MTA software that
> violates RFC 2821. I don't imagine this is very many. Certainly no
> opensource MTA that I'm aware of does this. I don't think Microsoft's
> MTAs do either.
> _____________________________________________
> tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
>
_____________________________________________
tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
