You may consider that a legitimate use. I do not.
Everyone is so keen on not losing any existing functionality. The existing
functionality is what got us into this problem.
You would have to make a case that a Listserv requires that scheme to function
properly. There is no reason Listserv cannot give a MAIL FROM address and
process or ignore the error message. From all appearances it is just a cheap
shortcut.
Can you point to something in the RFC that indicates there is a valid use for
null senders other than bounce/error messages?
On Friday 21 March 2003 11:41 am, Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:36:25 CST, David Walker <antispam(_at_)grax(_dot_)com>
said:
My point is that if my mail server receives a message with a <> envelope
sender it should not deliver the message intact to the user. It should
wrap that message to make it obvious that is an error report. If it is a
spam but
is delivered looking like an error report it loses it's effectiveness as
a spam.
You *DID* know that there's some legitimate mail that isn't an error report
that goes with a MAIL FROM:<>, right?
In particular, LSoft's Listserv product sends the "confirmation cookie"
messages for opt-in lists with MAIL FROM:<> specifically *BECAUSE* if it's
mailing to 'fred(_at_)foobar(_dot_)com' to confirm that it's a valid address
and an
intended request, the bounce will be dropped on the floor if in fact it's a
bogus address.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg