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

David,

On 7 Mar 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Looked at the way you have, it's
obvious. My mistake was to look at it the way they did:-

Non-bounce message missing envelope FROM address!

i.e. there is a From: header present, so it must be a non-bounce message,
so it has to have a non-NULL envelope FROM address. Clearly nonsense, if
I stop to think.

Conclusion: always read what's on the envelope before opening the mail!

Thanks again,
Richard