On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> One class is represented by a few obsolescent domains, which we're
> still accepting as addressees on incoming mail, but which are no
> longer used on outgoing mail [...]
> Another class are role aliases of a kind which we don't actually use
> as sender addresses [...]
> It seems to me quite reasonable to respond to these kinds of bounces
> with a 5xx [...]
A number of sites do this, afaik with reasonable success.
> [1] I've noticed a number of cases recently where "newsletters" and
> other kinds of bulk mail are sent to our users with <> as their
> envelope sender: I'm inclined to say "faked as delivery status
> reports" and rate it as abuse, or am I being over-strict?
I expect to discover a number of sites sending desirable email in this
manner, so I expect to have to exempt them from the checks if I can't
persuade them of the error of their ways. An inevitable consequence of
trying to retro-fit sanity onto something that has evolved haphazardly
for over 20 years.
Tony.
--
<fanf@???> <dot@???>
http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\
\N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}
