On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Matthew Frost wrote:
> > Yeah, it's broken. This is what the null envelope sender is for, and
> > specified for in the RFCs. If you want to whine, go whine to the
> > authors of the MTAs that bounce messages with null envelope senders.
>
> Pah, so _that's_ where that "#@[]" incantation comes from. I've seen
> it in envelopes stuck on a non exim system... It upsets it...
What I don't understand is the logic here. If a broken MTA sends bounce
messages for incoming mail with <> as the sender, why will it not do the
same thing for #@[] as the sender? Oh, I guess it's a particular kind of
brokenness that checks for <> specially. Sigh.
[If you set forbid_domain_literals in Exim, it will not accept #@[] as a
valid address, incidentally.]
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
