On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> One should not be using non-null envelope sender addresses on this
> kind of transaction to an arbitrary MTA. That risks creating mail
> loops - and just imagine what happens when they decide to verify your
> envelope sender address by calling _you_ out, using a non-null
> envelope sender, and you then call that envelope sender out to check
> it, and so on...
That problem is quite easy to avoid.
> If the remote host repudiates a transaction that has a null envelope
> sender, then it's a matter of policy what you then decide to do about
> it.
Our policy is to treat servers that reject bounces as stupid rather than
malicious, and therefore give them the benefit of the doubt. However
maintaining the whitelist is a time sink and so I'm going to implement
something that requires less effort.
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}}
