[51386] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Knowles)
Mon Aug 26 18:37:28 2002
In-Reply-To: <E17jKpW-0000Gk-00@nmg2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:20:52 +0200
To: Martin Cooper <mjc@cooper.org.uk>,
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 3:26 PM +0100 2002/08/26, Martin Cooper wrote:
> return nonrepudiated;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> OK - but unconditionally permitting null-return paths means that
> spammers can drive a coach and horses through the hole it leaves. :-(
IIRC, the RFCs require that you accept mail from the null
envelope sender. Yes, it does open a hole, but spammers have avoided
using this address for a long time, for reasons I still don't
understand.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w---
O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
