[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: recent spam to this list

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:47:44PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Julian Mehnle <lists@mehnle.net> wrote:
>>> Andreas Metzler wrote:
>>>> If I send an e-mail over mail.nusrf.at with envelope-from
>>>> ametzler@logic.univie.ac.at I am _not_ forging anything or making
>>>> "unauthorized use of domains"

>>> Yes, you are.  The envelope-from address is not a reply-to address,
>>> it's a sender address.  If you are sending from mail.nusrf.at, you
>>> are not sending from logic.univie.ac.at.  So you should not specify
>>> <ametzler@logic.univie.ac.at> as the envelope-from address, or you'd
>>> be forging it.
>> No, I am just specifying where I want bounces to go to.
>>       MAIL FROM:<reverse-path> [SP <mail-parameters> ] <CRLF>
>>    This command tells the SMTP-receiver that a new mail transaction is
>>    starting and to reset all its state tables and buffers, including any
>>    recipients or mail data.  The <reverse-path> portion of the first or
>>    only argument contains the source mailbox (between "<" and ">"
>>    brackets), which can be used to report errors.
> There you have it.  It's the "source mailbox", and while it can be
> used to report errors, it can *not only* be used to report errors.
> I'm relieved that the RFC doesn't contradict my common sense
> understanding of a "sender address".

I does not confirm it.

There is no such thing as "the domain part of the <reverse-path>
should/has to/must be identical to the domain name of the machine the
mail was written on originally", it just states that <reverse-path>
can be used to report errors to.
          cu andreas

Reply to: