On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 08:48:43PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 08:56:52AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 06:28:40PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: >>> This one time, at band camp, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh said: >>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
>>>>> As I know it, the receiving MX connects the regular MX for the >>>>> sender address to see if *that* is ready to receive mail. Works >>>>> beautifully if outbound != inbound. >>>> And sets the envolope sender to what in the probe? >>> <>, hopefully. Anything else is silly. >> Yes and no. An increasing number of sites refuse "bounces" (that is >> messages with null return-path) to some addresses that are known >> never to send mail. This breaks the procedure and is reacted by >> other sites by using a fixed "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> address, and mail to that address doesn't incur that check (but >> ends up in /dev/null or gets refused at DATA time). > That doesn't add up. Since <> never sends mail, there will never be > a sender verification callback TO that address either. Some sites verify the [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses before accepting mail with sender [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
