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

RE: recent spam to this list

Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:47:44PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > 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.

Confirm what?  My common sense understanding of a sender address?  Hopefully RFCs wouldn't have to define *everything* they relate to, since common sense already defines a lot of it.

Don't you agree on my understanding of a sender address (or source mailbox) being the address (or source mailbox) the sender sends from?  If so, please state it explicitly, so I have something I can argue against. :-)

> 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.

RFC 2821 may not state that.  So the cited proposals (like SPF, etc.) were created as proposed amendments to RFC 2821, and *they* do demand that -- for domains that have been configured that way, not for other domains.  So where do you see a problem?

Reply to: