--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