> > So far, the only situation when an entity A can legally send something
> > with null return path to another entity B is when A needs to make some
> > kind of status report about an e-mail message (with non-null return
> > path) which was sent by B.
Roger Fajman <RAF@CU.NIH.GOV> replied:
> When RFC 821 was written, spam did not exist, so the
> issue wasn't considered.
You have a good point here. The issue should be considered and then
clarified. I will stop arguing about obscure implications of RFCs on
matters which were not considered when the original standard was
> The mailing list for the working group is firstname.lastname@example.org. To be
> added, write to email@example.com.
> But the working group is trying to get both this document and the RFC
> 822 revision out the door, so it may well not want to consider this
> issue at this late date.
Actually IMHO the most logical place to clarify this matter would not be
the revision of RFC 821, but a revision of RFC 1123. Do you know whether
such a revision is planned or in progress?