Author: Peter Bowyer Date: To: Exim Users Subject: Re: [exim] Thanks for all your input
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:56:00 +0100, Jon Kyme <jrk@???> wrote: >
> >> Yes, I see that. I suppose I'm asking if the forwarder
> >> (alias-expander) is
> >> correct to preserve <>, or whether it should supply a new,
> >> valid, non-null
> >> reverse-path.
>
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@???> wrote:
>
> >$DEITY yes it's correct to leave it as <>. Turning bounces into
> >non-bounces would be _BAD_.
>
> Why?
Bounces have null senders to avoid mail loops - if a bounce is
undeliverable, it is simply dropped. If it has a non-null sender then
the MTA responsible for the non-delivery of the bounce would have to
bounce the bounce.... much badness.
