[ On Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 12:46:14 (-0400), David Brodbeck wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: [exim] Is there and logical reason to reject mail from: <> ?
>
> From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:woods@most.weird.com]
> >
> > Also, keep in mind that there's no reason why the envelope sender
> > address can't be set to <postmaster@???>.
>
> Except that I own the domain and its mail servers and I don't do that. That
> means any DSN to postmaster has to be the result of a forgery.
>
> I don't see why I should accept DSNs from forged mail just to support other
> people's broken call-back verification systems, or so they can avoid typing
> a few characters during manual testing.
In the case of the <postmaster> or <postmaster@???> addresses
there's really no good reason why you shouldn't accept transactions
using an empty return path. (and neither you nor anyone else has given
any even remotely valid reason)
DO not confuse the issues of forged sender addresses and the need to
give decent remote support of these things for legitimate purposes.
About the only time it's ever valid to reject a message with an empty
return path is when there's more than one recipient specified. It's
impossible, by design, for there to ever by more than one recipient when
the recipient has been specified from another envelope return addr.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
