Re: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org

[Brad Knowles <brad.knowles () skynet be>]

At 3:26 PM +0100 2002/08/26, Martin Cooper wrote:

>                   return nonrepudiated;
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>  OK - but unconditionally permitting null-return paths means that
>  spammers can drive a coach and horses through the hole it leaves. :-(

	IIRC, the RFCs require that you accept mail from the null 
envelope sender.  Yes, it does open a hole, but spammers have avoided 
using this address for a long time, for reasons I still don't 
understand.

--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles () skynet be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w---
O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)