This one time, at band camp, Lionel Elie Mamane said: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 06:28:40PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > > This one time, at band camp, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh said: > >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > > >>> As I know it, the receiving MX connects the regular MX for the > >>> sender address to see if *that* is ready to receive mail. Works > >>> beautifully if outbound != inbound. > > >> And sets the envolope sender to what in the probe? > > > <>, hopefully. Anything else is silly. > > Yes and no. An increasing number of sites refuse "bounces" (that is > messages with null return-path) to some addresses that are known never > to send mail. This breaks the procedure and is reacted by other sites > by using a fixed "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" address, and mail to > that address doesn't incur that check (but ends up in /dev/null or > gets refused at DATA time).
When I find sites that are broken, I report them to dsn.rfc-ignorant.com, and then others can use that as a whitelist or blacklist as they choose for deciding what to do with callouts and the like. I do refuse the null sender to various role accounts that never send mail, but I don't do it at RCPT TO time, only after the remote end has sent DATA. This allows callouts to work, but still blocks bounces resulting from joe jobs and the like. Take care, -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
