spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids

2004-02-28 09:33:58
--On Samstag, Februar 28, 2004 12:48:25 +0100 Alex van den Bogaerdt <alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
[...]
In theory, when you are explicit on _why_ you reject a connection, rfci
should not list you.

 mail from:<>
 rcpt to:<postmaster(_at_)yourdomain>

 55x I am SES protected. This is not a valid bounce. See http://....

He would still block mails to postmaster. And <> is a perfectly valid envelope sender for all kinds of mails where there is no reason why a bounce should be returned (typically automatically generated mails).

I use <> for all our robot generated mails as nobody would read the bounces and any retransmission is unnecessary (e-commerce application, who needs order confirmation mails when the goods have been delivered already?).

AFAICS many people seem to believe that <> is only meant for bounces while RFC2821 only states that bounces MUST be sent with that enevelope sender. I can see no reason why people try to block mails with empty envelope sender.

Ralf