Bart Schaefer <schaefer(_at_)brasslantern(_dot_)com>:
On Nov 30, 11:11pm, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
}
} Thus, RFC2822 does not mandate that the address be valid. We are
} referred to RFC 2821. Section 4.1.1.4 reads:
}
} When the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a
} message, it inserts a return-path line at the beginning of the mail
} data. This use of return-path is required; mail systems MUST support
} it. The return-path line preserves the information in the <reverse-
} path> from the MAIL command.
}
} I read this to mean that the Return-Path must, if present, be a
} valid mailbox for a responsible person (note the MUST).
I read this to mean that the server is reqired to insert the return-path
field, regardless of its knowledge of the validity of the mailbox.
...and that return-path field must describe the valid submission address
from which the mail entered.
The sentence "This use of return-path is required; mail systems MUST support
it. The return-path line preserves the information in the <reverse-
path> from the MAIL command." is pretty definitive.
Suppose I send a message to you. For whatever reason, it's queued at
my company SMTP server rather than delivered immediately to your MX.
While the message is in the queue, I have an argument with my CEO over
the interpretation of RFC2821, and he fires me. The sysadmin immediately
disables my email account.
You're saying that its now an _SMTP protocol_ violation for the company
server to complete the process of delivering that queued message to you?
I am saying that I may refuse mail becayse that path has become invalid
and be in strict conformance with RFC2821. When Hector Santos talks about
strictly enforcing the SMTP standards in order to close loopholes that
spammers are using, this is what he means -- and he's got a point.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg