On Dec 1, 1:34am, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
}
} I am saying that I may refuse mail becayse that path has become invalid
} and be in strict conformance with RFC2821.
I don't disagree with that.
What I disagree with is the claim that the *sending* system is in violation
of RFC2821 because the return-path has become invalid. Put another way, I
don't agree that RFC2821 *justifies* your refusal of the message, merely
that it does not *prohibit* such refusal.
Yakov's point (unless I'm completely confused) is that it would constitute
a new requirement for *sending* systems if the return-path "MUST" always be
a valid address. Hector says that it would not be a new requirement, and I
still haven't been convinced that Hector is correct.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg