Author: Dave C. Date: To: Exim Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [Exim] RFC 2821 and "headers_sender_verify"/"headers_checks_fail"
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Tuesday, May 15, 2001 at 12:02:43 (+0530), Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: [Exim] RFC 2821 and "headers_sender_verify"/"headers_checks_fail"
> >
> > There _is_ one other reason. When you send out autoresponders on a large
> > scale (say an ISP's abuse ticketing system) and want to stop people from
> > replying to the autoresponder (hitting reply-all instead of reply does this)
>
> The autoresponder could use a legal RFC-x822 format group address
> specification with an empty list, which should prevent any MUA from
> replying. The group-name can be something like "you can not reply". :-)
>
> The autoresponder should still use a legal and valid SMTP envelope
> sender address other than "<>" of course.
Erm?
Any automatically-generated mail (especially generated in response to
receipt of a message, regardless of wether its an nondelivery report or
anything else) should always use <> as the envelope sender to prevent
mail-loops (eg, the classic 'dueling autoresponders' situation)
