On Dec 1, 6:54pm, Brett Watson wrote:
}
} Let me see if I can summarise the crux of the matter, here.
}
} Regardless of what the RFCs say about return address validity, it
} seems like a reasonable local policy to reject mail that has an
} invalid return address.
}
} The problem arises in actually determining the validity of any address.
The real question, as Yakov has asked repeatedly, is what benefit is
gained from validating the address rather than validating the source
of the message?
Hector responds that there is benefit now in using SMTP to validate the
address, because it doesn't require any additional protocols for source
validation, and that in turn is the case because the existing protocol
requires that the sender mailbox be deliverable.
} Or am I misunderstanding this argument?
I dispute that the existing protocol supports Hector's position. As I
said in another message, I also dispute that VRFY can be adapted for this
purpose in any useful way.
This is not the same as disputing the policy of rejecting mail that can't
be validated.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg