RE: [exim] Is there and logical reason to reject mail from: …

On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 12:06 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
>
> > On ons, 2004-10-13 at 23:18 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed. However, if we became aware (by whatever means[1]) that you
> > > repudiated a bounce to postmaster at the RCPT stage, you might well
> > > land up in our "unreachable domains" blacklist,
> >
> > how do you rationalise your response?
>
> When I said "might well", I guess that was not a good choice of words.
> What I meant to say is that it might provoke mail admins to look more
> closely at the situation, as a result of which, if other factors
> applied, they might decide that the site was not participating
> properly in SMTP.
>
> Suppose (for instance) that the response is "Bogus MAIL FROM",
> irrespective that the addressee is postmaster. [... or ...] we get
> told at the RCPT stage that mail to postmaster is rejected because the
> mailbox is over quota. It's been like that for weeks.

I agree with this response to your two examples. However, if the site
rejects bounces to non-sending addresses, and includes a plain English
explanation of this in the RCPT TO, I trust you would check again with a
non-null sender address before condemning them as bad citizens.
--
Kjetil T.