Wasn't Stuart talking about the SMTP Sender (ie mail from: x) not
recipients?
Does this happen for genuine emails or just spam?
Perhaps we should substitute postmaster for the named recipient?
Charles
Serge Knystautas wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stuart Roebuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Whilst blank sender addresses are probably not common and
> > may need to be handled as erroneous, I notice that currently,
> > a blank sender address in an SMTP header results in the following
> exception:
>
> I've been thinking about how to handle this... the "blank" address is a
> significant value, kind of like passing the object "Void", if you will. I
> was thinking about how we could possibly handle an empty collection of
> recipients, but this is really just a special kind of recipient.
>
> Anyway, how's this for a solution... add an optional line to the conf file
> that specifies an address to use if someone sends to the blank address.
> Then when someone does MAIL FROM: <>, we add that address to the recipient
> list. If they do not specify in the conf file, we could default this to the
> postmaster address as that seems appropriate. In addition, in the SMTP
> handler we'd want to make sure you couldn't send to multiple addresses if
> you sent to the blank recipient.
>
> Comments? This isn't very difficult and would enable James to receive this
> bounce messages.
>
> Serge Knystautas
> Loki Technologies
> http://www.lokitech.com/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/james%40list.working-dogs.com/>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/james%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
