From: Lars H. <lhe...@us...> - 2000-11-29 16:20:05
|
Vanderlei A. de Paula Junior writes: > I'm sorry. I think I provided an incorrect piece of information. The problem occurs when > the "Return-Path:" field (not Reply To) is empty. Do you think this changes the scenario? I repeat: headers fields are completely irrelevant to scanmails/amavis. RFC 1123 5.2.8 [...] When the receiver-SMTP makes "final delivery" of a message, then it MUST pass the MAIL FROM: address from the SMTP envelope with the message, for use if an error notification message must be sent later (see Section 5.3.3). There is an analogous requirement when gatewaying from the Internet into a different mail environment; see Section 5.3.7. DISCUSSION: Note that the final reply to the DATA command depends only upon the successful transfer and storage of the message. Any problem with the destination address(es) must either (1) have been reported in an SMTP error reply to the RCPT command(s), or (2) be reported in a later error message mailed to the originator. IMPLEMENTATION: The MAIL FROM: information may be passed as a parameter or in a Return-Path: line inserted at the beginning of the message. So, if the Return-Path: is empty *and* the *original* sender (envelope FROM) is not empty, then and only then there may be a problem in scanmails. If some other software fscks up before or after scanmails, it's not scanmails' fault. Whether or not this is the case can be established by checking the relevant mail log files. |