Who cares what it means or what the original intent was! It still must be
verifiable!
If the industry has Time Square neon flashing advertisements saying the
"60-80% of the MAIL FROM: address is BAD," it is completely boggles the
mind as to why everyone is ignoring it in the name of what the darn user
will see!!!
Your proposal is based on a verifiable client domain name. Why can't the
MAIL FROM be verifier? Even it is a bounce address? Why must one 1 of 2
inputs be valid and not the second?
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Jim Lyon" <jimlyon(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: MTAs should focus on email TRANSPORT not email CONTENT
Jim,
JL> The mis-named "MAIL FROM:" doesn't tell you who sent the message, but
JL> who wants to receive the bounce if any. Much confusion would have
been
JL> avoided if the 2821 command were spelled "MAIL BOUNCETO:". Many
people,
JL> including me, have gone down the path of erroneously trying to use
"MAIL
JL> FROM:" for authentication.
given that the misnomer dates back to rfc 821, it's rather impressive
that it took more than 20 years for us to notice the error!
in an odd way, this highlights the difficulty of preventing scaling
problems.