David S. Madole wrote:
>
..[snip]...
>
> Anyway, I'm not advocating any position, just trying to point out that
> so often this issue is (in my opinion) a case of "the pot calling the
> kettle black". Personally, I don't do callouts, but I don't care if
> someone else wants to do them against my server. However, I do only
> accept mail from "<>" to VERP addresses that I use for the envelope
> sender and change daily.
But the RFC ignorant list is for people who reject this sequence of
commands:
client_sends > EHLO host.domain.com
server_response> 250 OK
client_sends > MAIL FROM: <>
server_response> 550 Error, We don't accept NUL senders
Nobody argues about this sequence of commands which you use:
client_sends > EHLO host.domain.com
server_response> 250 OK
client_sends > MAIL FROM: <>
server_response> 250 OK
client_sends > RCPT TO: <user@yourdomain>
server_response> 550 Error, No such recipient
Those are two TOTALY different things, but all server must/should/etc.
take a MAIL FROM: <> and respond with a 250 OK to that.
--
--EAL--
--
