On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Omar Thameen wrote:
> I've run into a minor loop problem where an MTA couldn't deliver a
> message, and reported this fact to the address in the "reply-to" field
> of the list, which was set to the list itself (yes, I warned them of
> such danger). I assume that sending undeliverable-type messages to the
> reply-to address is not RFC compliant. Does anyone know offhand
> what address it's _supposed_ to send errors to and what RFC specifies
> this? I checked 821 and 822 and didn't see anything specifically
> addressing this behavior.
Please see
http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/ccc/email/badbounce.html
You might wish to refer the administrators of the offending site to
that document as well.
That document quotes section 4.1.1 of RFC821 and section 4.4.4 of RFC822
which apply to this matter.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826
Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814
J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice.
References:
|
|
