On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Padraic Renaghan wrote:
> At this point exim attempts to deliver the bounce message to
> padraic@??? so it establishes an SMTP connection with renaghan.com.
> The problem is that the bounce message does not have a sender - exim reports
> the FROM in the SMTP session to renaghan.com as "<>". Renaghan.com says
> something like "bogus from" and does not accept the bounce message. The
> bounce
> message stays in the queue since it cannot be delivered.
This is a problem with renaghan.com.
> Why is the Sender on the bounce message Null?
Because the RFCs say it must be. Send them this extract from RFC 1123:
5.2.9 Command Syntax: RFC-821 Section 4.1.2
The syntax shown in RFC-821 for the MAIL FROM: command omits
the case of an empty path: "MAIL FROM: <>" (see RFC-821 Page
15). An empty reverse path MUST be supported.
[...]
5.3.3 Reliable Mail Receipt
When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a
"250 OK" message in response to DATA), it is accepting
responsibility for delivering or relaying the message. It must
take this responsibility seriously, i.e., it MUST NOT lose the
message for frivolous reasons, e.g., because the host later
crashes or because of a predictable resource shortage.
If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message,
the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification
message. This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>")
reverse path in the envelope; see Section 3.6 of RFC-821. The
recipient of this notification SHOULD be the address from the
envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). However, if
this address is null ("<>"), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a
notification. If the address is an explicit source route, it
SHOULD be stripped down to its final hop.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
