spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids

2004-02-28 14:32:50
--On Samstag, Februar 28, 2004 18:17:26 +0000 David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> wrote:

On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 17:33 +0100, list+spf-discuss(_at_)doeblitz(_dot_)net 
wrote:
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.

RFC2821 §4.5.5.

   There are several types of notification messages which are required
   by existing and proposed standards to be sent with a null reverse
   path [...]
                                            [...]  All of these kinds of
   messages are notifications about a previous message, and they are
   sent to the reverse-path of the previous mail message. [...]

   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 with a valid, non-null reverse-path.

I cannot see the sense of sending a message with a non-null reverse path that i will always reject because I do not want to receive any bounces for that message (it being itself a disposition notification, just not for a previous email). But if they prefer these IMHO unnecessary SMTP dialogs, then so be it.

Ralf