abuse@ where? It takes research and guesswork to determine that.
I really don't understand your question. The purpose of the proposal, (as I
see it, it isn't my proposal) is to provide a tool I can use to check and see
if the mail is being sent from an legitimate, acceptable machine under the
control of the the sender's domain. Presumably if someone is trying to send
mail FROM my domain from a machine I have disallowed, then they are not a
legitimate mail user (a spammer and/or a forger) and should not see their
message delivered.
There is no reason this proposal would encourage ISPs of spammers to allow
spam through. Dropping forged header mail (with an SMTP error code) is just
good practice.
I think you're confusing MTA maintainers at the forged from site with the MTA
maintainers running open relays. With the current design, when someone sent
out a mail with a forged @grax.com from address the bounce messages came to
me. But I have no control whatsoever on who sends mail "from" my domain
until we get this implemented.
On Monday 24 March 2003 07:39 am, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
This point needs some expansion. Is the purpose of the proposal to allow
receipients to block on characteristics other than connection address? To
block only the spammers, and allow the legitimate mail to go through? Why
doesn't this have dangerous incentive effects, that is, MTA maintainers
will lose part of their incentive to block spam at the source because
their own legitimate mail will no longer be at risk of being blocked.
I can certainly see some ISPs giving up on spam control, and just telling
receipients that they should drop forged header mail rather than forward
it to abuse(_at_)(_dot_)
Daniel Feenberg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg