- Newest
- Most votes
- Most comments
Is there an issue with the workaround you mentioned you found already?
SHOULD doesn't imply a hard requirement or guarantee, so both requiring an address, like SES is doing, and accepting an empty address, as is the recommendation, are permitted by the RFC. I would think the reason the configuration option you found exists is because this isn't an uncommon deviation from the recommendation. For the purpose of interpreting the RFC, "should" is formally defined like this (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119):
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
The stated reason the empty address was recommended in the RFC published in 2008 was to avoid mail loops between automated senders. At the scale AWS operates email sending, they would certainly be the first to know if mail loops were an actual issue in the world of 2024.
Relevant content
- asked 10 months ago
- asked 2 years ago
- asked a year ago
- asked 2 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 8 months ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 years ago
Thank you for your detailed response. I discovered the workaround after I posted my query and am satisfied with it. Nonetheless, I was curious about other potential solutions, and your explanation provides a comprehensive and insightful answer. I appreciate your input.