Some questions about anti-UBE rules

Last Update 2000-01-01

This page is no longer maintained. Please use www.Sendmail.org instead!


Here are some answers and thoughts about anti-UBE ideas which come up from time to time.

How do I reject "MAIL FROM:<>"?

Don't do it! Internet standards require to accept e-mail with an empty sender address, i.e.,
MAIL FROM:<>
RFC821, section 3.6 says:
      This notification message must be from the server-SMTP at this
      host.  Of course, server-SMTPs should not send notification
      messages about problems with notification messages.  One way to
      prevent loops in error reporting is to specify a null reverse-path
      in the MAIL command of a notification message.  When such a
      message is relayed it is permissible to leave the reverse-path
      null.  A MAIL command with a null reverse-path appears as follows:

         MAIL FROM:<>
RFC1123, section 5.2.9 says:
      5.2.9  Command Syntax: RFC-821 Section 4.1.2

         The syntax shown in RFC-821 for the MAIL FROM: command omits
         the case of an empty path:  "MAIL FROM: <>" (see RFC-821 Page
         15).  An empty reverse path MUST be supported.
(emphasis and links added by me). Error messages (in general: delivery status notifications) are sent this way, so they must not be rejected.

Guess what? Some people can't read and they have a setting in their mail server (IMail 4.0+ for NT) that rejects those addresses. Why are people allowed to distribute (sell?) such software? (they probably take some other company as bad example...).

How do I reject mails with local sender addresses coming from external systems?

In general, that's another bad idea. Let's assume the following: YOUR.DOMAIN is the name of your domain (intuitive, isn't it?), and some user at REMOTE.DOMAIN installs a .forward file at REMOTE.DOMAIN which says:
user@YOUR.DOMAIN

Next, someone from YOUR.DOMAIN sends an e-mail to that user at REMOTE.DOMAIN which gets forward to user@YOUR.DOMAIN That is, your server receives an e-mail with a local sender address and a local receiver address, which is relayed from a remote system (REMOTE.DOMAIN).

If you would reject those mails, the above scenario would break. Can you make sure that this scenario won't happen? If you can, you may take a look at a proposal from Ted Deppner. However, you have to change it for 8.9.


Other proposals what should be in this text? Send me an e-mail. Thanks.


[(links)] [Hints] [Avoiding UBE] [cf/README] [New]
Copyright © Claus Aßmann Please do not send mail to <claus@247msg.com>, it's a spam trap.
Disclaimer: the information provided may be inaccurate or outdated or incomplete. Please contact me if you find an error.