On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Chambers, Phil wrote:
> I find it hard to believe that the sender is not getting this problem
> from other sites, so I am looking to find out if I am unusual in
> rejecting messages with unqualified addresses in the header (as opposed
> to the envelope). Would you allow such a message in?
(Hello Phil.)
No:
## header syntax error
## However, we allow the stupid Microsoft-generated but technically
## invalid "<Undisclosed-Recipient:;>" content through because it
## causes many problems otherwise
deny !verify = header_syntax
message = Syntax error in the headers of your message.\n\
$acl_verify_message\n\
REFUSENOTICE
condition = ${if eq{$h_to:}{<Undisclosed-Recipient:;>}{no}{yes}}
You will see we do make one concession to broken MS clients. Explaining
it to so many end users was getting tedious.
I think from previous conversations on this list, though, use of
verify header_syntax is not very commonplace.
I suggest you stand firm, and repeat the suggestion to the sender that he
uses the Bcc: header if he wants you to accept the messages. If he can't
be bothered to do that, then they won't get delivered, and that's a
decision he makes. He'll still blame you, of course, but if he chooses
not to take up a workable compromise, that's up to him.
Jethro.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jethro R Binks
Computing Officer, IT Services, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
