From: David Walker <antispam(_at_)grax(_dot_)com>
...
started checking, but it is now the default in popular MTAs. Have
you turned off that check because it is not mandated by an RFC?
I haven't turned it on yet. So I guess so.
There is a direct logic path for that rule though.
1. Someone is sending me a message
2. The domain they are sending from does not exist
3. Therefore they are trying to deceive me and there is no need to bother
accepting it.
That logic is based on the dubious assumption that only maliciousness
can cause bogus sender addresses. Better logic is that mail with bogus
sender addresses cannot be replied to or bounced, and that bogus sender
addresses are often but not always an indication of attempted deceipt.
The hacks I am objecting to, if I understand them correctly, abuse MX records
The phrase "abuse MX records" is wrong and inappropriate. No "abuse"
is involved.
so that I would only accept mail from a server if it is eligible to receive
mail. Sending and receiving are different functions and should not be
required to be done by the same machine(s).
I understood you to be advocating, no demanding that the sending and
receiving ISP be the same since any other mail is "spoofed." In many
and probably most cases, that restriction is the same as requiring that
sending and receiving MTAs be the same set of machines.
Please note that I strongly disagree with both restrictions.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg