----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr(_at_)thyrsus(_dot_)com>
To: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer(_at_)brasslantern(_dot_)com>
The receiving MTA is conformant if, upon ascertaining that the Return-Path
is invalid, it refuses the mail for that reason.
The fact that said Return-Path may have become invalid after transmission
and
before receipt is an interesting edge case which does not affect the
meaning of RFC2821 in any way.
Exactly.
It really just like regular snail mail.
When someone puts a return address on the upper left corner of the envelope,
it is the expectation of the "SYSTEM" that is is valid in order for it to
work properly.
That doesn't say anything about the "possibility" that it may not be valid
or blank which means no return process needs to be considered.
The consequences of such is that the SYSTEM can no longer return the mail
which is natural part of the system functional specification. The SYSTEM
can no longer go any further with the invalid return address.
There is a systematic process in place that works with the idea that the
RETURN ADDRESS is valid.
Same is true with SMTP. All commercial servers work with this design
assumption. It has too. Otherwise it doens't work which the SPAMMERS are
proving for us. :-)
---
Hector Santos, CTO
WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server"
support: http://www.winserver.com
sales: http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg