Subject: require support of <>

From: Ofer Inbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 19:31:31 -0400 (EDT)

RFC821 describes what a null return path ( "<>" ) is for, but doesn't
quite explicitly say "you must support this", though it is implied.
RFC1123 adds that explicit requirement.  The current 821bis draft does
not have this explicit statement.  It, too, has a description of <>
that strongly implies that it needs to be supported, but it seems that
not all implementors understand this, and this causes big headaches
for admins of large mail systems.  Since 821bis will suprsede 1123 for
email stuff, I think it should include such a statement.  It's useful
for beating up on people who don't accept mail from <>.

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)         -- [email-masked] [email-masked]
  --  The Left Bank Operation  -- [email-masked] http://www.leftbank.com/
 "OSI is a beautiful dream, and TCP/IP is living it!"
   -- Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>, IETF mailing list, 12 May 1992

---

From: Glenn Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:41:35 +1200

>for beating up on people who don't accept mail from <>.

I think it would also be useful to include the relevant discussion 
from section 6.2 of RFC 1891 about handling of messages with null 
return paths that can't be delivered.

Glenn.