On 2/2/16, 7:59 PM, "mailop on behalf of John Levine" <mailop-boun...@mailop.org on behalf of jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
>>return-path address <SRS0=g2..et=OB=example.net=usern...@eigbox.net> >>rejected by mail1.example.com:25: > >> after reading RFC5322 > >Um, that's the wrong spec. RFC 5321 describes the rules for SMTP. Yeah, and RFC 5321 says to use header formats as defined in RFC 822. Which was obsoleted by RFC 2822. Which was obsoleted by RFC 5322. It's a twisty little maze of RFCs ;-) >>1) Am I correct in believing that two dots with no intervening atext >>characters are illegal in a return-path? > >Yes. The argument of a MAIL FROM is a reverse-path (not a >return-path), which is a mailbox in < >, and a mailbox can be >local-part@domain, and an unquoted local part is a string of atoms >separated by dots, so to be technically correct the local part with >the two dots should be quoted. I tried sending mail to a double dot >address at gmail and was surprised to see that they rejected it too, >so it's a rule that people pay attention to. > >>2) If 1) is correct, does anyone have a good contact at eigbox.net that I >>can ask for help getting their VERP fixed? > >EIG? I wouldn't hold my breath. They've been scooping up various small >and >medium sized mail providers and they're pretty incoherent. > >The good news is that since it's from EIG, the chances that the >message was one that your user would regret missing are pretty low. Unfortunately, this particular sender is pretty important. Thanks for the reply; it's helpful. -- Dave Pooser Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
