At 1:12 PM -0600 3/21/03, David Walker wrote:
Can you point to something in the RFC that indicates there is a valid use for
null senders other than bounce/error messages?
Null senders are to be used for delivery errors. You are assuming
that it is possible to encode all possible delivery problems in such
a way that a spammer cannot put their own message in there. I don't
believe that's true.
However, it would certainly help if MUAs handled such messages
specially. My experience with the more clueless spectrum of
end-users is that the current bounce system does not work. They get
mail from this scary address (mailer-daemon) and it contains a bunch
of garbage they don't understand (if they open it). In general they
delete it without opening it (might be a virus). They certainly
don't use it to fix their address book.
And anything that makes it harder for spammers to get their message
across is certainly going to help limit the class of people who use a
spammer.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg