"Jon Kyme" <jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com> wrote:
In the interest of consensus (and to avoid rehashing some old
discussions), it might be better if we leave out "responsibility". It's
not clear to me that it's crucial in what we're trying to do, which is
to provide a means of determining if a domain is "happy" to have its
name used in this field.
Hear hear!
--Alan DeKok <aland(_at_)ox(_dot_)org> wrote:
Or, it's verifying (at some level), that the bounce path exists.
RFC 2821 doesn't provide for bounce-path verification, but it
requires that a message be delivered or bounced. Without bounce-path
verification, an MTA may accept a message, and then be forced to
discard it as un-bouncable.
Hear hear!
I don't really care what it is called, if 2821.MAIL FROM is used for
bounces, then I want to be able to limit the use of my name there.
I find it ironic to the point of silly that on one side we're not allowed
to "read anything into" MAIL FROM, (such as the MAIL being FROM that
domain) BUT at the same time, we are expected to believe that there is a
magic relationship between 2822.Sender and 2821.MAIL FROM. Despite the
fact that a sizeable chunk of email has no Sender: header... I just don't
see the relationship and I don't see why we need to infer it to get any
work done.
I will now repeat what I said to Harry because it applies here too... I
don't want to depend on any "magic relationship" between two fields. I
would rather validate MAIL FROM against the domain used in MAIL FROM and
validate 2822.Sender against the domain claimed in 2822.Sender.
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>