Having gotten into the business of generating my own DSNs, I have examined
DSNs and replies from other mailer more carefully. I see that the biggest
offender for sending out replies instead of DSNs is Microsoft SMTPSVC. The
subject says "Delivery Status Notification (failure)", but the MAIL FROM is
<postmaster(_at_)example(_dot_)com> instead of <>. Ugh. (Even worse, they
don't
reject the mail they are rejecting, but accept it, then send it to me wrapped
as a non-DSN claiming to be a DSN saying "we don't want it".)
Now, a question for all you rfc2821 gurus. If I translate
<postmaster(_at_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)> to <> in an attempt to work around the
M$ braindamage,
what other problems will that cause? Since I sign outgoing return paths,
I would end up rejecting all direct (non DSN) email from
<postmaster(_at_)anydomain> (which is good when they come from braindead M$
servers.) Is this a problem? Would someone ever need to send me email (as
opposed to a DSN) with a MAIL FROM of <postmaster(_at_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)>?
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.