[ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 20:29:17 (+0200), Jakob Hirsch wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...
>
> But I
> never saw a person using empty sender and cannot think of a reason why
> somebody should do it.
I guess you've never seen me manually testing MTAs with telnet then! ;-)
> A person sending mail but not wanting to receive
> any replies is sounds really weird to me.
We're not talking about replies here -- we're talking about error
notifications, non-delivery reports, vacation messages, and the like.
These days there are sometimes other ways to avoid getting error
notifications and other DSNs and such, but even now there's no more
reliable way than to use a null return path.
> > 4.5.5 Messages with a null reverse-path
> [...]
> > Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) [10]. All of these kinds of
> > messages are notifications about a previous message, and they are
> > sent to the reverse-path of the previous mail message. (If the
>
> That's exactly what several people told you: user@domain never sends out
> mail, so he will never get valid mail from <>.
MDNs are in fact (usually) valid e-mail from <>, even though they are
sent on behalf of the original recipient.
> And please stop CCing me, I'm on the list.
Please use reply-to properly if you want to avoid CCs. I'm not going to
think, or presume, for you.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
