On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Jon Kyme wrote:
Jon Kyme wrote:
But of course, these source routes MUST NOT be truly *explicit* - or a
new
channel for abuse is opened up - the "bounce path".
I found an example about these source routes in RFC2821, Page 75:
Is this so significant that it has to be addressed? After all, is it so
terrible that, if joe(_at_)example1(_dot_)com wants his mail forwarded to
joe(_at_)example2(_dot_)com, he wants example2.com to have some anti-spam
mechanism
in place? Furthermore, if example2.com wants to base its decision on
the original connection address, it has a very easy decision to make,
since the message should have come from example1.com, any other would be
invalid. Or am I misunderstanding the problem? Can someone make the new
spam path explicit?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg