On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 12:26:33PM -0500, Charles Gregory is rumored to have said: > > Another spam today, with the infamous empty return path. > (Return-Path: <>) > > But I didn't see any test that was catching this. Is there something > legitimate about an empty return path that makes it a bad test?
Bounce messages sent by daemons use a blank address, as required by RFC 2821: "One way to prevent loops in error reporting is to specify a null reverse-path in the MAIL command of a notification message. When such a message is transmitted the reverse-path MUST be set to null." St- > > - Charles > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF. Net email is sponsored by: GoToMyPC > GoToMyPC is the fast, easy and secure way to access your computer from > any Web browser or wireless device. Click here to Try it Free! > https://www.gotomypc.com/tr/OSDN/AW/Q4_2003/t/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk -- "When you do the common things in life in an uncommon way, you will command the attention of the world." - George Washington Carver (1864-1943) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF. Net email is sponsored by: GoToMyPC GoToMyPC is the fast, easy and secure way to access your computer from any Web browser or wireless device. Click here to Try it Free! https://www.gotomypc.com/tr/OSDN/AW/Q4_2003/t/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
