Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!v.wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA From: v.wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (Rich Wales) Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: "MAIL FROM:<>" in SMTP Message-ID: <366@hou3c.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Mar-84 14:16:36 EST Article-I.D.: hou3c.366 Posted: Mon Mar 5 14:16:36 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Mar-84 03:25:35 EST Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Lines: 26 To: Header-People@MIT-MC Instead of using an empty "MAIL FROM:" address if the original return path is rejected for some reason by the receiving site, I would suggest trying a "Postmaster" address, as in the following scenario: 220 FOO.ARPA SMTP Server ready HELO BLAH.ARPA 250 FOO.ARPA MAIL FROM:<"Fred Flintstone"@BLAH.ARPA> 501 Yecch! I don't like <"Fred Flintstone"@BLAH.ARPA> MAIL FROM:250 OK . . . This way, at least, the delivery-error message (if any) will go some- where and can be dealt with by a (probably already overworked) wizard. If, for some inscrutable reason, the receiving site rejects a "Postmas- ter" return address, THEN go ahead and use an empty address. Whenever a receiving site rejects a valid "MAIL FROM:" address and the mailer has to resort to using "Postmaster", of course, the gurus at the sending site should be notified in some way (e.g., by a note in a log file). This is doubly true in cases where a receiving site rejects a "Postmaster" address -- something that should never, ever happen! -- Rich