Author: Kai Henningsen Date: To: exim-users Subject: Re: [Exim] Should vacation messages go to reply_address or return_path
ph10@??? (Philip Hazel) wrote on 21.08.00 in <Pine.SOL.4.21.0008211111450.13480-100000@???>:
> On 19 Aug 2000, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > > I've never, ever, not once, seen '<>' appear in an automatically
> > > generated RFC-822 header, especially not in a bounce, and I can't find
> > > any evidence of it either in my RFC collection, nor in of my megabytes
> > > of archived real e-mail.
> >
> > Umm, I see lots of those in my mail, coming through Exim. You're not
> > looking very hard, it seems.
>
> No, you haven't! (With the possible exception of "Return-Path:" added at
> final delivery.)
Uh, "with the possible exception" of the one place where I'd expect them?!
> It is illegal in RFC 822 to have '<>' in any of the "normal" address
> header lines such as From:, To:, Cc:, etc., which is what I think was
> being referred to.
Actually, as I said in the part you snipped, those were the parts Greg
mistakenly thought Vadim was talking about, but Vadim meant either Return-
Path: or MAIL FROM:. The envelope sender, in other words. The one thing
any autoresponder should look at, and not ever reply if it's "<>".
