On Monday 23 September 2002 15:03, Greg Ward wrote:
> On 23 September 2002, Mike Meredith said:
> > to block mails with "<>" as the sender address *and* multiple
> > recipients. The reason for this being the occasional mail
> > virus/worm that uses this sender address.
>
> Ooh, clever idea! Not sure what the RFCs say about this, but my
> intuition tells me that <> with multiple RCPTs is bogus.
RFC2505 2.6.1 specifically says that you MUST NOT block "<>" with
multiple recipients because there are sometimes occasions when a bounce
should go to multiple recipients (it mentions list aliases).
As I'm pretty sure I don't have senders with multiple recipients, it's
tempting to ignore that bit of the RFC (did I really say that?) and go
ahead.
> ote that eq is for string comparisons -- I think the condition should
> be coded either
It started off with '>' and has ended up that way (I'm not fully up to
speed with this stuff and it took a while before it started working).
> Also, I belong to the "precise and useful SMTP error messages" school
> of thought, so I would use
>
> message = cannot have multiple recipients with null sender
Definitely an improvement ... at the very least *I* will have to read
and understand the message.
- --
Mike Meredith, Senior Informatics Officer /~\ The ASCII
University of Portsmouth \ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML
Hostmaster, Postmaster and Security / \ Email!
