ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)

2003-11-30 18:39:23
On Nov 30,  6:20pm, Hector Santos wrote:
} 
} ----- Original Message ----- 
} From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer(_at_)brasslantern(_dot_)com>
} 
} > }    receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message.  This
} > }    notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the
} > }    envelope.  The recipient of this notification MUST be the address
} > }    from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). "
} 
} > [That] is not a requirement that the original sender accept it.
} 
} Thats a non-issue.  Unrelated really.  A Callerid Verification system is
} not sending mail.  Half the battle is solve by being able to connect or
} not connect and reaching the RCTO TO: stage.

Another example:

As a SourceForge project administrator, I get notices of system upgrades
or downtimes and so on.  These messages are MAIL FROM: an address similar
to <do-not-reply(_at_)sf(_dot_)net> (I forget the exact address).

If such a message arrived at a host using your caller-ID system, your
system would connect to the sf.net MX, issue "MAIL FROM:<>" and then
issue "RCPT TO:<do-not-reply(_at_)sf(_dot_)net>".  Right so far?

The point that Yakov tries to make is that there is no RFC requirement
that sf.net respond "250 recipient OK" when presented with that RCPT TO:.
In fact, it probably responds "550 user unknown".  There is also no RFC
requirement that sf.net's sending server knows, at the time that it says
"MAIL FROM:<do-not-reply(_at_)sf(_dot_)net>", exactly what response sf.net's MX 
may
give when presented with that address as a RCPT TO:.

Your system would thus reject this perfectly legitimate message.  The
fragment of 2821 that you quoted above does not justify your use of this
RCPT TO: test for sender validity.  Is there some other standard that
you believe does justify it?

} But with that said,  the receiver must accept a NULL address.

In MAIL FROM:, yes.  That part truly _is_ unrelated to Yakov's point.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>