[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt

2008-04-25 02:13:22
Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2008-04-24 15:36:59 +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Robert A. Rosenberg writes:
At 03:19 -0400 on 04/19/2008, Hector Santos wrote about Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt:
Just consider the many transactions with addresses such as:

  no-reply @

that many feedbacks system use today, including bad guys and the bad/good direct marketing people.
What is the envelope address for these messages?
The ones that end mail to me (about fifty addresses in my personal mail archive, mostly noreply@, some no-reply@, some others) generally use the same address,and it's valid in the sense that the address is syntactically valid and that mail to the address is accepted by the best MX for the domain.

I would not bet that mail to such an address is stored on disk, or causes any reaction other than (at most) an autoresponse. But YMMV.

I wouldn't bet either, but I would consider it bad practice if the
envelope sender for any automated mail is a black hole. If no human is
reading it, then there should at least be some program which analyzes
bounces and marks bouncing addresses as probably invalid.
The envelope sender for automated mail just be blank. That's defined as the address you use if you don't want a bounce.

Unfortunately, there's a large number of mail servers out there which won't accept mail with null return paths, contrary to RFC 2821 - that's at least one reason why people use noreply@ etc.

Paul Smith

VPOP3 - POP3/SMTP/IMAP4/Webmail Email server for Windows