Re: [Exim] A variation on 'Null envelope sender not allowed'

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:00, Richard.Hall wrote:
> Can someone better versed in the legalities of these things confirm my
> belief that the remote end is severely brain-damaged?

You're correct -- it's severely brain-damaged. Since there's no
(required) standard way to lay out bounce messages anyway, I have
difficulty in comprehending how it's trying to decide whether the
offending object with null SMTP reverse-path is a bounce or not.

--
dwmw2