On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 21:18 +0800, AccuSpam wrote:
I could probably think of more. Can anyone think of compelling
reasons to convince ourselves we can force an algorithm on the DNS
record (even though IMO we can not in reality)?
I can think of reasons why we should ensure that there is a clear
distinction between those addresses which are considered to be an
acceptable RFC2821 reverse-path, and those addresses which are
considered to be acceptable in RFC2822 headers.
220-ZenIV.linux.org.uk ESMTP Exim 4.41 Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:16:59 +0100
220 Be gentle with me
helo me
250 ZenIV.linux.org.uk Hello me [2002:c35c:f9fc::1]
mail from:<dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org>
250 OK
rcpt to:<dwmw2(_at_)ftp(_dot_)uk(_dot_)linux(_dot_)org>
550-Verification failed for <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org>
550-Called: 2002:c1ed:8229:10:2c0:f0ff:fe31:e18
550-Sent: RCPT TO:<dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org>
550-Response: 550-This address never sends messages directly, and should not
accept bounces.
550-550-Please see http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html or contact
550-550 postmaster(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org for further information.
550 Sender verify failed
220-canuck.infradead.org ESMTP Exim 4.42 Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:15:52 -0400
220 Be gentle with me
helo me
250 canuck.infradead.org Hello me [2002:c35c:fd02::1]
mail from:<postmaster(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org>
250 OK
rcpt to:<dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org>
250 Accepted
rset
250 Reset OK
mail from:<>
250 OK
rcpt to:<dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org>
550-This address never sends messages directly, and should not accept bounces.
550-Please see http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html or contact
550 postmaster(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org for further information.
--
dwmw2