|
Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:15:52 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1176354216P";
micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" |
Comments: |
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:05:56 MDT, you said:
> Mostly sites seem to be using this to tell where mail comes from
> exclusively. If it doesn't resolve (as in the case of a blank) then it
> doesn't get there.
Supporting MAIL FROM:<> is *REQUIRED* by RFC1123, section 5.2.9. This
is a clarification of RFC821, section 4.1.2. It's how mail daemons
send back errors in a way guaranteed not to loop (think about if it
came back with a non-null MAIL FROM - you could get two mailer daemons
sending each other error messages).
I've gotten sufficiently fed up with sites that are that unclued that
I'm in the process of writing auto-flame scripts for Procmail to deal
with it when Listserv sends me the bounce message.
I would suspect that mail from a list always has the MAIL FROM: set,
but mail that has 'From: listserv@hostname' in the RFC822 headers will
go out with a null MAIL FROM. However, Eric or Nathan is free to
correct me on this ;)
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
|
|
|