der Mouse wrote:
Well, I meant ".forward-style forwarding", by which I mean,
forwarding such that when A sends mail to B, which forwards
to C, then B's mailserver accepts the A->B transaction and
generates a new SMTP transaction to C, with the same MAIL
From as the first hop but a new RCPT To.
In other words 1123 5.3.6(a) with an unmodified MAIL FROM.
If that's what you meant by "the originator as indicated
in the Return-Path", well, then, "yes".
The bit about "the originator as indicated in the Return-Path"
was supposed to be a RfC 2821 quote, but I got it wrong, it's:
| 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).
And yes, I think we must keep this MUST as is, and therefore we
can't keep 1123 5.3.6(a) as is, in a world with forged "reverse
paths" everywhere this causes havoc for innocent bystanders.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg