On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Mike Meredith wrote:
> > 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.
Uhm, an bounce should only go to the (single) sender/return path of an
original message. If your server ends up aliasing that internally to
more than one recipient, then that will have already passed that test.
I would say it was safe to reject such crap.
> > 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!
>
>
> >
> --
>
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
>
