On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Matthew Elvey wrote:
Only if you're assuming that the SUBMITTER is added following 'the
rules'. The spec doesn't say that mail with a falsified SUBMITTER
should be refused or discarded. (I hate all the pussyfooting around the
discard option.)
Actually that was the original intent -- if it didn't get added to the draft
it probably should be. A message that claims a certain SUBMITTER but doesn't
have that address in the right place should be rejected after DATA and should
not be accepted.
Also, I have thought of a possible legal problem with SUBMITTTER - The
US' YOU CAN SPAM bill, IIRC, forbids falsified headers. Is the envelope
part of the header? Arguably not. If not, will future spammers be able
to send email with falsified SUBMITTER info but without falsified
headers? OTOH, the headers are misleading if they don't match the
SUBMITTER, just like a Subject that doesn't describe the body is
misleading. So this is probably a non-issue.
The way it is defined, SUBMITTER needs to reflect one of the headers. If the
SUBMITTER says one thing and the headers suggest PRA is different, I would
hope it would be rejected. If the questionable message is not rejected for
some reason, the MTA should probably insert something in the Received: line or
next to it that says "MTA claimed Submitter was x(_at_)x"
--
Greg Connor
gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org
Everyone says that having power is a great responsibility. This is a lot
of bunk. Responsibility is when someone can blame you if something goes
wrong. When you have power you are surrounded by people whose job it is
to take the blame for your mistakes. If they're smart, that is.
-- Cerebus, "On Governing"