On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:52:04 -0500 Michael Scheidell <michael.scheid...@secnap.com> wrote:
> [204.89.241.253] mail from: <> > 250 OK > rcpt to: <ab...@caledonia.net> > 550 Missing, invalid or expired BATV signature A long time ago, I was involved with an argument with the RFC-Ignorant maintainer. The thread starts here: http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/2004-September/002668.html The gist of my argument was that addresses that never *send* mail can reasonably expect never to *receive* DSNs or other kinds of messages with an envelope sender of <> and can legitimately block them. The battle raged for a while, but eventually we were delisted. (We block mail from <> to postmas...@roaringpenguin.com because we never, ever send mail from postmas...@roaringpenguin.com) Regards, David.
