[76457] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: verizon.net and other email grief
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Dec 10 16:39:03 2004
To: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
Cc: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:36:12 PST."
<Pine.LNX.4.44.0412101200260.31092-100000@sokol.elan.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:36:37 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_-1022249872P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:36:12 PST, "william(at)elan.net" said:
> They are correct in this case. The address entered in RFC2821 MAIL FROM
> is "Bounces-To" address and it must accept bounced email and as such it
> must accept incoming emails. If the address does not accept traffic as
> you indicated should not be used in MAIL FROM and different adddress from
> local machine should be used. Please read email RFCs and then you'll
Yes - *you* know that the address you put in the MAIL FROM: should be one
that you know is willing to accept any bounces you may be about to
generate, and *I* know that.
The problem is that the spammer (I include A/V companies that still
generate rejection notices) knows that as well - and doesn't feel
the same need to follow the rules and be a good netizen.
Yes, it's a royal pain trying to follow a protocol when you know up front
that there's a 70% to 90% chance that the other person is intentionally
failing to follow it....
--==_Exmh_-1022249872P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFBuhbkcC3lWbTT17ARAicKAKCxgjOvOGgssSVKx33ZcIaxwY8hTgCglsrb
9mcC+1cB4EUe1pO9pMJrwxM=
=aJKX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-1022249872P--
