nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verisign changes violates RFC2821, and spam implications
From: Bruce Campbell <bc-nanog () vicious dropbear id au>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:45:30 +0200 (CEST)
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
is there some conceivable case for which this system _would_ accept a message, e.g. postmaster () real-name-for-that-machine verisign com ?
There would be no reason for that particular machine(s) to receive legitimate email for itself, as Verisign can (and should) easily put an MX record pointing to another machine to handle legitimate mail directed @sitefinder-idn.verisign.com . Ergo, the hopefully more polite version of Snubby can cancel the SMTP transaction without having to check whether its mail directed to itself. --==-- Bruce.
Current thread:
- Re: Verisign changes violates RFC2821, and spam implications Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS (Sep 17)
- Re: Verisign changes violates RFC2821, and spam implications Andy Smith (Sep 17)
- Re: Verisign changes violates RFC2821, and spam implications Stephen J. Wilcox (Sep 17)
- Re: Verisign changes violates RFC2821, and spam implications Bruce Campbell (Sep 17)