On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 04:14:06PM +0000, James Day wrote:
> > Not in this case, sending NDRs with a non-null envelope sender address is a
> > fundamental violation of the robustness requirements of SMTP. This goes
> > beyond working-around misconfiguration to flagrant violation of a basic
> > design requirement that prevents congestive collapse of the mail system.
>
> I didn't mean to start an argument about breaking RFC's.
I don't think you did. I'm not an RFC maximalist, and don't care
a great deal whether a particular setting does or does not violate
some RFC. The RFCs provide a guide to determine what is sound and
robust behaviour, and what is fragile or dangerously misguided.
One should generally strive to be RFC compliant, but, more importantly,
one must apply logic and avoid misguided configurations or policy
that put the network at risk, or carry a high risk of interoperability
failure. This is a combination of RFC compliance, common sense, and
best-practice experience.
There was only one knee-jerk RFC maximalist post in this thread, it
can be safely ignored.
--
Viktor.
