----- Original Message ----
> From: Patrick Ben Koetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:50:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Null Sender <> RFC?
>
> * Victor Duchovni :
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> >
> > > I was looking for a (current) RFC section that says SMTP servers MUST
> > > accept
> > > messages sent by the null sender "<>", but almost all I found were
> references
> > > that say notifications MUST be sent as null sender.
> >
> > The empty sender is a valid sender. It must not be rejected as
> > syntactically invalid.
> >
> > It is unwise to reject mail from the empty sender, but nobody can force
> > you do accept it. You can reject any mail transaction you see fit to
> > reject for any reason.
> >
> > If you do reject all bounces, sites may choose to reject your mail,
> > because you are not interested in being informed of delivery problems
> > (and are unable to respond appropriately).
>
> I agree completely with you. What I am looking for is a RFC that says the
> empty sender MUST be accepted. It seems so natural to me to do that and
> everybody says it's at least 'best practice' to do that that I was absolutely
> shure its am RFC MUST. Just like the requiremnt to accept "Postmaster" etc.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> All technical answers asked privately will be automatically answered on
> the list and archived for public access unless privacy is explicitely
> required and justified.
>
> saslfinger (debugging SMTP AUTH):
>
Maybe this will help you: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1123.txt
