Author: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Date: To: W B Hacker CC: exim users Subject: Re: [exim] suggestion for those implementing ACLs to
suppressbackscatter bounces
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 20:24 +0800, W B Hacker wrote: > Ok - but that has been 'masseged' and is no longer a valid 'bounce'.
>
> The original, 'valid' or RFC-compliant bounce has already been accepted onto
> your server.
>
> Sorting out the expansion & forwarding rules is now *your* responsibility, not
> that of the RFC (or 'default' Exim either).
as far as I know, there is no requirement that messages with an empty
sender address should be handled differently than others. please
provide chapter and verse if you have a relevant citation.
> One of the oldest of tools - done in an MR/2-ICE MUA, for example, is to
> 'attach' the incoming to a new message, subject "Forwarded" and send THAT
> onward. Voila - no longer an empty header (though, absent a footer, the body
> might be).
the SPF crowd also says traditional forwarding is all wrong and needs to
be fixed, but that view doesn't influence how SMTP actually works one
yotta.
--
Kjetil T.
