Re: Confusion about allowing missing MAIL FROM

On 10/13/10 5:54 PM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> On 2010-10-11 20:34:10 -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
>> I saw something in my qpsmtpd.log this evening which struck me as
>> unusual.  In one particular incoming message, the MAIL FROM was not
>> there.  A quick telnet session reproducing it follows, followed by the
>> list of active plugins.
>>
>> I'm not aware of there being a good reason for allowing this behavior,
>> but I'd be happy to be told otherwise.
>>
>> Also, for what it's worth, I've tried this with and without
>> 'dont_require_anglebrackets' enabled, both resulting in the same
>> behavior.  Ultimately, I'm curious if this is expected, or if I've found
>> a bug.
>>
>> Best regards, and thank you for the great program.
>>
>> -- log output --
>> mail from:
>> 250 <>, sender OK - how exciting to get mail from you!
> 
> IMO this is a bug. A completely missing reverse path (instead of the
> usual empty path <> for bounces) isn't allowed by RFC 5321 and I see no
> reason to be lenient in this case (at least unless
> dont_require_anglebrackets is enabled.
> 

dont_require_anglebrackets is enabled, but I've reproduced it with it
disabled as well.

Regards,

-- 
Glen Barber