Author: Renaud Allard Date: To: Heiko Schlittermann CC: exim users Subject: Re: [exim] OT(?): SRS vs. SORBS sending mails with '<>' sender
Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > Hello *,
>
> what I understand from SRS is:
>
> If I use SRS for outgoing messages, bounces to messages I sent should be
> addressed to SRS-"encoded" recipients, not to real real recipients.
>
> Right?
>
> No I registered with SORBS, they asked for my mail address to send
> confirmation request. I discovered that this request was sent with
> empty sender (thus looking like a bounce). I I'd have SRS in place it
> would be a problem, wouldn't it?
>
> Who is wrong here? Should SORBS use valid non-null sender addresses or
> should I forget thinking about SRS?
>
>
> [ In case SORBS is wrong - does anybody here know some folks from SORBS
> to ask for a fix? ]
>
If you'd ask for a personal advise, SORBS is nothing to be trusted as a
blacklist.
I personally don't think bounces should be allowed for an address that
_never_ sends mail or has never sent a mail that require a bounce, while
they still use that trick to send "legitimate" mails. By definition, a
bounce is a response to a mail that has been sent from an address, not
something that should be used as a sender for a fresh new mail. The
latter just deserves to be blocked or discarded.
