On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 10:46:33PM +0200,
Johan Almqvist <johan-exim@???> is thought to have said:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 04:03:56PM -0400, Tabor J. Wells wrote:
> > Because the envelope from of the message is "<>" and Exim doesn't generate
> > a bounce to a null sender (because in cases of legitimate mail a sender of
> > "<>" denotes an error message being returned to sender or some other mail
> > from the remote MTA).
> >
> > You might want to look into the receiver_verify option to prevent this
> > mail from ever getting to your queue. When the to recipient address
> > doesn't exist, the message will be rejected during the SMTP session.
>
> Actually, the RFC's say that mail from <> must be accepted. Many MTAs send
> bounces from that address.
No I'm not saying that he should reject on "<>". That would be wrong. I'm
saying that since clickherenow@??? was an invalid address,
receiver_verify would have prevented it from coming into his spool and
freezing there. There's no requirement to accept mail from "<>" if the
RCPT TO address is invalid.
Tabor
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tabor J. Wells twells@???
Fsck It! Just another victim of the ambient morality
