> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi....@nanog.org Fri Feb 19 22:32:48 > 2010 > From: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:32:10 -0500 > Subject: Re: Spamhaus... > To: Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> wrote: > > On 2/19/2010 7:20 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> "If an SMTP server has accepted the task of relaying the mail and > >> later finds that the destination is incorrect or that the mail cannot > >> be delivered for some other reason, then it MUST construct an > >> "undeliverable mail" notification message and send it to the > >> originator of the undeliverable mail (as indicated by the > >> reverse-path)." > > > > Does the RFC say what to do if the reverse-path has been > > damaged and now points to somebody who had nothing > > what ever to do with the email? > > Hi Larry, > > Re-reading the paragraph I quoted and you repeated, I'm going to say > that the answer is "yes." >
I'll bite. *HOW* do you send to the _originator_ (as *required* by the RFC you quoted) of the undeliverable mail, when the reverse path points to 'someone else'? Note well the exact lanugage used -- it does not say 'the party named in the reverse path', the 'claimed sender', 'putative sender' or any other similar equivocation that justifies sending to a forged address. It says "the originator". To me, that can be only iterpreted in _one_ way. To wit: as the party that _actually_ created and transmitted the message, _regardless_ of what the declared return path is. Since such a message is 'defective' (not RFC-compliant -- because the true point -of-origin is *NOT* in the reverse path, as it MUST be for an RFC-compliant message) on it's face, I will argue that there is no need to apply the 'required' handling for a 'proper' message to it.
