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?