[ On Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 10:12:42 (-0700), Tor Slettnes wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [exim] Is there and logical reason to reject mail from: <> ?
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2004, at 09:31, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > Well in the case of <postmaster> the whole goal of the address is to
> > facilitate remote support and debugging and it's one hell of a lot
> > easier to type "<>" when manually testing SMTP connections than it is to
> > type something long but legitimate in there.
>
> Presumably, the 550 response message would indicate the reason for the
> rejection: "This address is never used in outgoing mail; you are
> responding to a forged address".
So? That would just piss me off even more, and I expect most other
people would simply throw up their hands in frustration and give up at
that point.
There is simply NO VALID EXCUSE for rejecting transactions with an empty
return path when the sole recipient is the <postmaster> mailbox.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
