On Sun, 8 Aug 1999, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
> Quoth Jan Suchanek on Sat, Aug 07, 1999:
> > 1999-08-07 17:45:09 11CvoA-0003pF-00 ** someone@???
> > R=lookuphost T=smtp: SMTP error
> > from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: <> SIZE=12935: host
> > mail.somewhere.com [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]: 501 bogus
> > mail from
>
> Tell the sysadmin on their side to fix their mailer. If they
> argue, smack them with a copy of RFC 821, chapter 3.6, pages 15
> and 16.
Or 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.
