Re: [exim] Re: Thanks for all your input

David Woodhouse <dwmw2@???> wrote:
[your snip]
>
>You have no idea how many addresses 'dwmw2@???' is forwarded
>to.

[my snip]

Indeed, but this has very little to do with what I said.
The post I responded to (it does seem a long time ago)
was about RFC2505.

The nub is:
I don't believe there's any sound argument for accepting messages with the
null
sender but with recipients which were never in the return-path of a
previous message, nor any good reason why I should accept multiple
recipients for a message with a null sender. These requirements would seem
to put the convenience of third-parties over and above my needs.

If you know of any such requirements in the mail RFCs
(other than 2505 which I believe contradicted by 2821,
and by much *current* practice) I'd be grateful if you could give me
the references. Even then, I'm not sure that they would cause me to
reconsider my local policy.

Rgds,
JK