On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> It is accepted good practice for all autoreplies to have an empty
> envelope sender to prevent loops - it is easy to make a case that this
> is good practice.
>
> However are there any specifications (such as RFCs) around that mandate
> or even suggest this? [I'd like a set of references in my armory for
> hitting idiot mail admins with].
RFC 2476 Message Submission December 1998
Note that a null return path, that is, MAIL FROM:<>, is permitted
and MUST be accepted. (MUAs need to generate null return-path
messages for a variety of reasons, including disposition
notifications.)
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
