From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jul 25 13:11:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA22036 for current-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA22030 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id NAA19967; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:06:10 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199707252006.NAA19967@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing To: gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:06:09 -0700 (MST) Cc: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM, jflists@calweb.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19970725033109.17747@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> from "John-Mark Gurney" at Jul 25, 97 03:31:09 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > no, they are bouncing mail which doesn't have a valid return-path... > and actualy, you are required to specify this... An SMTP server must accept a return path of "<>", indicating an administrative message which should not be replied to under any circumstances. Much SPAM is now coming in from "<>" specifically because of this, which is why you use the "HELO domain" and the connection infromation. See RFC 1985. > I agree... but I'm going to look at better ways of handling this.. > like possibly teaching a machine about our "subdomains" so that we > can have addresses like: "jmg@hydrogen.nike.efn.org@resnet.uoregon.edu" > which is perfectly valid from the mail stand point... as it is parsed > as " @ domain"... plus I have tested this with > godzilla.zeta.org.au, and it was successful in accepting the > connection... This is not valind. "foo@fee.com;@fum.com" is valid, since it designates a route. RFC821 (SMTP) servers must accept address routes (for parsing; the can 521 refuse them, or "user not local" them, etc.), but are not required to perform forwarding. What happens with multiple "@XXX@YYY@ZZZ..." depends on the actual parser, but the forma semantic definition does not specify that it must operate that way. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.