From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Jarosch Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:50:34 +0000 Subject: Re: Re: [mlmmj] Allowing empty enevelope senders Message-Id: <2861823.GP7UN3AmiU@storm> List-Id: References: <3154844.GYFGS8R0Q3@storm> In-Reply-To: <3154844.GYFGS8R0Q3@storm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: mlmmj@mlmmj.org Hi Ben, On Thursday, 10. July 2014 17:54:01 Ben Schmidt wrote: > On 8/07/14 6:59 PM, Thomas Jarosch wrote: > > I've found a good description why an empty envelope is a valid thing > > according to RFC 821, page 15: > > http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/nullenvelope.txt > > That link correctly identifies empty envelope senders as used for bounce > messages. > > Furthermore, as you've identified, the mails are being discarded by > Mlmmj, not the mail server. The mail server accepts them, meeting the > requirements of the RFC and the document above. Mlmmj discards them, > because they should not be delivered to the mailing list. > > If they are getting to that point in Mlmmj, it probably means VERP is > not working/misconfigured, because bounce messages should come back to > listname+bounces and get handled by mlmmj-bounce so bouncing users are > automatically unsubscribed (which helps prevent your mail server getting > blacklisted, among other things). the problem here is a bit more complex: The mlmmj managed mailinglist gets the replies from a separate newsletter that is not managed by mlmmj. So the return path of that newsletter is set to an address that is managed by mlmmj :) Would you be ok with if I develop a patch to make the "discard of empty envelope address" configurable? Default is to keep the current behavior. Thomas