[ On Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 15:04:27 (+0200), Jakob Hirsch wrote: ] > Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing > bounces... > > Empty return path means the message is generated by some machine, not a > human, right?
Not necessarily -- you seem to be confusing the concepts here. > So if the recipient address is never used for outgoing > mail, why in the world should any machine send mail to this address? You seem to think that anything, agent or human, sending mail has to have a mailbox address. That's simply not true. Often there is no "recipient" user/mailbox in the first place for agents which send messages with a null reverse path. That's part of what the null reverse path is for to start with -- i.e. to be able to send mail without having a valid, non-null, return address! Please pay close attention to all the hints in this section from the SMTP protocol standard: 4.5.5 Messages with a null reverse-path There are several types of notification messages which are required by existing and proposed standards to be sent with a null reverse path, namely non-delivery notifications as discussed in section 3.7, other kinds of Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs) [24], and also Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) [10]. All of these kinds of messages are notifications about a previous message, and they are sent to the reverse-path of the previous mail message. (If the delivery of such a notification message fails, that usually indicates a problem with the mail system of the host to which the notification message is addressed. For this reason, at some hosts the MTA is set up to forward such failed notification messages to someone who is able to fix problems with the mail system, e.g., via the postmaster alias.) All other types of messages (i.e., any message which is not required by a standards-track RFC to have a null reverse-path) SHOULD be sent with with a valid, non-null reverse-path. Implementors of automated email processors should be careful to make sure that the various kinds of messages with null reverse-path are handled correctly, in particular such systems SHOULD NOT reply to messages with null reverse-path. Note that automated e-mail processors are not required to use a non-null reverse path -- though they are strongly encouraged to do so. Indeed agents acting on the behalf of users, e.g. handling incoming messages to users and sending automated replies to those messages, such as vacation notices, should send those reply using a sender address that will be returned to the same user. -- Greg A. Woods H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/