Philip Hazel [exim-users] <15/05/01 08:30 +0100>:
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > Valid envelope from, and something like autoresponder@dont-reply in the
> > from.
> > At least one ISP I know does that. OK, it's not very elegant, but it works.
> ... and contravenes RFC 2822, as I read it:
> In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that
> does not belong to the author(s) of the message. See also section
> 3.6.3 for more information on forming the destination addresses for a
> reply.
As the From: field is non-routable anyway, the question becomes moot.
Alternatively, dev-null@$domain (pointing to the obvious place) would be
RFC-legal in this case.
> (2) I suppose one could get into deep philosophical arguments about the
> concept of "belonging" for a non-existent mailbox. :-)
Heh :)
> From: and Date: are now the only two required header lines in a message.
> I think the idea is that From: should give some valid information about
> the origin of the message.
It looks like (with MAIL FROM: <>)
From: do-not-reply@??? ($ISP Autoresponder - Dont Reply)
Reply-To: abuse@$isp
Seems quite ok to me - keeps within the spirit of the clause you quoted
anyway :)
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin
