>From Jason L Tibbitts III:
>
> MC> Bounce, as in send to the list owner? Or bounce, as in return to the
> MC> sender with an informative messaeg?
>
> Well, the problem is that according to the headers we don't have a place to
> send the mail back to.
I thought the RFC said that you use the Sender for errors, not the
Reply-to. It's a problem for the sender; if the sender address is
bogus, at least we tried. I agree that sending to either (or all)
Reply-to addresses is not all that helpful.
>
> MC> It'd be nice if MD would send a "your mail headers are screwed up"
> MC> message back to the sender...
>
> If the headers are screwed up, how are you supposed to figure out who the
> sender (i.e. RFC822 originator) is to get a message back to them?
If there is no sender/return-path, or whatever, abort. You do what
you can.
> The original question was what to do with a clear violation of RFC822,
> i.e. two Reply-to: headers. Remember, if Reply-To: exists, you can't
> expect to reach anyone at the from: address. That's what Reply-To:
> designates.
Except that SMTP is supposed to send errors to the sender,
regardles of the existence of a Reply-to -- why can't MD take the
same approach? Or am I misreading something somewhere?
--
Regards,
Merrill Cook
Louisville KY
mcook@pcusa.org or MERRILL COOK on Ecunet/PresbyNet
http://www.pcusa.org/pcusa.html
-+-
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
