On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 19:10 +0100, Sante Luciani wrote:
> From some mail server we obtain:
>
> 2005-02-08 11:12:55 H=(host.remote_domain.local) [213.183.154.54]:30396
> I=[212.210.229.6]:25 sender verify fail for <aaaa@remote_domain.com>:
> response to "MAIL FROM:<>" from mail.remote_domain.com [83.103.57.67] was: 550 Sorry, this server is configured to refuse this sort of mail
> to combat the SPAM problem)
If they don't accept mail from <> then they are broken[*]. If they
think rejecting mail from <> is an appropriate spam control solution
then they are more stupid than most on the internet - and that puts them
way down below slime-mould, bacteria and marketeers.
Handling bounce messages (which have a null sender) is a RFC requirement
of a mail system. If they aren't prepared to do that then they should
be removed from the internet.
> MAIL FROM: <>
> to
> MAIL FROM: postmaster@local_domain.it
Now think what happens if you are talking to a host that also does call-
back verification.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
