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