On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 09:13:12AM -0400, David Brodbeck said:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Gran [mailto:steve@lobefin.net]
>
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:58:54AM -0400, David Brodbeck said:
> > > Sure about that? I saw an example of one host that was
> > permanently listed
> > > in rfc-ignorant for a sequence like this:
> > >
> > > EHLO host.domain.com
> > > 250 OK
> > > MAIL FROM:<>
> > > RCPT TO:<postmaster@yourdomain>
> > > 550 Rejected; use a real MAIL FROM address.
> > >
> > > Apparently they aren't too picky about what circumstances
> > they'll add people
> > > under. They do seem to be pretty picky about when they'll
> > remove people.
> > > This is why I don't use that blacklist to reject mail.
> >
> > Are you reading what you wrote? They are rejecting on mail from:<>,
> > which is a legitimate reason to be listed in dsn.rfc-ignorant.
>
> Yes, but the previous poster was arguing that it only happened if you
> rejected all mail from <>. This site was only rejecting mail to the
> postmaster with a null sender; other addresses accepted null sender mail. I
> don't want to get into the argument about whether that's a proper thing to
> do or not, but it's just not true that rfc-ignorant is particularly strict
> about what evidence they accept.
No, this is the output of a pipelined session - there is no 250 after
mail from:, so the 550 is for mail from:, not rcpt to:. They are
rejecting on a null envelope sender, not a combination of null envelope
sender and rcpt to postmaster.
You may be correct that this site only does that for postmaster, but I
can't see that in the output above.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Gran | Beware of all enterprises that require |
| steve@??? | new clothes, and not rather a new |
| http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | wearer of clothes. -- Henry David |
| | Thoreau |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
