> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:woods@most.weird.com]
> > > I.e. it is extremely counter-productive to allow admins
> to implement
> > > policies in such a way that errors are not returned until
> end-of-DATA.
> >
> > This is the only reasonable way to do content-based rejections, e.g.
> > rejecting viruses.
>
> Huh? What the heck does content (i.e. the part sent betweeen DATA and
> end-of-DATA) have to do with the use of a null sender address
> (i.e. the
> parameter sent with the MAIL command)!?!?!?!?
>
> If the content is clearly junk then it is pure junk through
> and through
> and your mailer can reject it in the response to the
> end-of-DATA (".").
> That's fine. That's good. That's the right thing to do.
It doesn't have anything to do with null senders. I thought you were
objecting to after-DATA rejections in general. Obviously I misunderstood.
