It might also be legal (per RFC-822 6.2.6 and RFC-2822 A.1.3) to use a
construct such as:
From: $isp autoresponse system :;
And I beleive that exim accepts this as valid.
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Philip Hazel [exim-users] <15/05/01 08:30 +0100>:
>
> > On Tue, 15 May 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> > > Valid envelope from, and something like autoresponder@dont-reply in the
> > > from.
> > > At least one ISP I know does that. OK, it's not very elegant, but it works.
>
> > ... and contravenes RFC 2822, as I read it:
> > In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that
> > does not belong to the author(s) of the message. See also section
> > 3.6.3 for more information on forming the destination addresses for a
> > reply.
>
> As the From: field is non-routable anyway, the question becomes moot.
> Alternatively, dev-null@$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 :)
>
>
--
