On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:48:44 EDT, William Herrin said:
Correction: It's a standard way to denote that "this mail is a bounce report."
It's *not* just "bounce reports" (in particular, DSNs and MDNs are not non-delivery (bounce) messages in the sense of section 3.7, and both can be generated in response to *successful* deliveries). generated for *successful* deliveries).
Hi Vladis, Point taken. Bounce reports, temporary failure reports and successful delivery reports. Nevertheless, it still isn't for "other programmatically generated mail." In fact, the next paragraph in RFC 5321 4.5.5 says: "All other types of messages (i.e., any message which is not required by a Standards-Track RFC to have a null reverse-path) SHOULD be sent with a valid, non-null reverse-path." Contrary to your claim, it's perfectly reasonable for an spam filter in a symmetric routing scenario to discard a null return path message that isn't unambiguously responsive to one it previously sent. On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Michelle Sullivan <matthew@sorbs.net> wrote:
Umm no... As has been pointed out by others, but in another section (maybe another RFC) it says that the null return path should be used when a return message is not required, not desired, or it is from an automated system or you wish to avoid mail loops (with particular reference to bounce messages and mailing lists.)
Michelle, Is your web site registration message required by a standards track RFC to use a null reverse path? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004