Gerrit, This may be the RFC requirement that you are looking for: RFC1123 5.2.9 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1123.txt
"5.2.9 Command Syntax: RFC-821 Section 4.1.2 The syntax shown in RFC-821 for the MAIL FROM: command omits the case of an empty path: "MAIL FROM: <>" (see RFC-821 Page 15). An empty reverse path MUST be supported." I believe it may be to do with rejected and bounced messages and return receipts Regards, Scott At 01:22 PM 10/06/2002 +0200, you wrote: >S�nke schrieb: > > >> What should I say? They state breaking RFC's is bad and more, but as I > >> read this bounce, THEY are breaking the RFC, or what do I tell now the > >> postmaster there? > > > they send an empty MAIL FROM - so there is no return path and that IS > > invalid !!! > > > if you want to accept the mail anyway, set the server.tab var right: > > > "AllowNullSender"\t"1"\n > >I wrote to the postmaster now that this is my fight against Spam: no >NullSender allowed. But I'm not sure, maybe it is mentioned in some RFC >that NullSender must be valid to verify emailaddresses? I havn't read >them all... > > >Gerrit >-- >=^..^= > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
