Tickets :: Comment on [#8781] Vacation option drop message , when a mail without return path

* Your Email Address
* Spam protection	Enter the letters below: .__ . .. ..__..___. [__)\|__\|\|_/ [__] \| [__)\| \|\| \\| \| \|
Comment	> If I understand correctly, this is correct behaviour on the part of > vacation, per RFC 3834. If there is a problem, it is with Notes > rather than vacation. Per the RFC: > > Responders MUST NOT generate any response for which the > destination of that response would be a null address (e.g., an > address for which SMTP MAIL FROM or Return-Path is <>), since the > response would not be delivered to a useful destination. > Responders MAY refuse to generate responses for addresses commonly > used as return addresses by responders - e.g., those with local- > parts matching "owner-", "-request", "MAILER-DAEMON", etc. > Responders are encouraged to check the destination address for > validity before generating the response, to avoid generating > responses that cannot be delivered or are unlikely to be useful. > > So, if there is no return path, or there is an empty/null return > path, we should not generate a reply. More specifically, the RFC > states: > > If the response is to be generated after delivery, and there is no > Return-Path field in the subject message, there is an implementation > or configuration error in the SMTP server that delivered the message > or gatewayed the message outside of SMTP. A Personal or Group > responder SHOULD NOT deliver a response to any address other than > that in the Return-Path field, even if the Return-Path field is > missing. It is better to fix the problem with the mail delivery > system than to rely on heuristics to guess the appropriate > destination of the response. Such heuristics have been known to > cause problems in the past. > > So, IMHO, this says fix Notes, and leave vacation as is.
Attachment
Watch this ticket

Saved Queries