On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:07:29 +0200,
Nicolas(_dot_)QUENTIN(_at_)fr(_dot_)thalesgroup(_dot_)com said:
I'll probably regret citing chapter-and-verse before having my morning caffeine,
but.. ;)
The DSN received has for the command part :
MAIL FROM: <> // is it normal to have
an empty adress in the MAIL FROM ?
Not only "normal", but *REQUIRED*. See RFC821, 1123, and 2821 - this is
how you prevent a mailing loop of bounce notices.
My Main Question is : Is it normal for a DSN to have an empty value in the
Command and to have no From Field in the header part ?
I assume you mean "empty value in the Command" to mean the MAIL FROM:<>, and
yes, that is both normal and required. However, RFC2822, section 3.6, requires
that there be a 'From:' header. The usual solution for this is to do the
following:
1) Use an RFC821 'MAIL FROM:<>' to prevent bounces.
2) Use an invented 822 'From:' header - RFC1894 has this in example 9.1:
9.1 This is a simple DSN issued after repeated attempts
to deliver a message failed. In this case, the DSN is
issued by the same MTA from which the message was originated.
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 17:16:05 -0400
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(_at_)CS(_dot_)UTK(_dot_)EDU>
Message-Id: <199407072116(_dot_)RAA14128(_at_)CS(_dot_)UTK(_dot_)EDU>
Subject: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 5 days
To: <owner-info-mime(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU"
Note the use of an invented 'From:' header - this would be sent with an
SMTP 'MAIL FROM:<>' (which will normally be made available to an MUA as
the value of the 'Return-Path:' header).
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
pgpFH3iXCgLqz.pgp
Description: PGP signature