David F. Skoll wrote:
Hector Santos wrote:
There is no server notification "message" requirement for NULL return
paths. That would be definitely be a server implementation (feature)
concept.
OK. I forgot that. How about just this:
If the original message has a non-null return-path, then a
proper failure report MUST consist of a notification to the
sender of the message.
Hi David,
Do you think this and your other points are already covered in 4.5.5 in
particular with the 2nd paragraph?
All other types of messages (i.e., any message which is not required
by a standards-track RFC to have a null reverse-path) SHOULD be sent
with a valid, non-null reverse-path.
--
HLS