Re: [exim] Refusing MAIL FROM:<> ...

Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> Yes, but RFC2821 didn't copy the "MUST support" thing. (What can we
>> learn from this?)
>
> Well, if you aren't going to support the syntax, then there's not
> much point playing the game.

There's still a difference between supporting the syntax and saying "no
bounce mails here". The latter *might* be ok for systems that don't send
mail, and therefor should never get any bounces. Allthough I think
refusing the empty sender is just plain stupid in most (if not all)
cases, I'm not that sure RFCs really require a 250 response to "MAIL
FROM:<>".

lg,
daniel