David Woodhouse wrote:
Please, interpret posts correctly; the text I quoted had a double
">>", indicating I was quoting the poster Terry quoted. So, relative
to "terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com wrote:", the ">>" was correct.
Strictly speaking, I suppose Terry did indeed write that, and the
original fault is indeed with him for not attributing correctly, and
not including an attribution line which you in turn could include.
But perhaps Mark you could have cleaned it up when you replied?
Yes, I could have. Will do.
Hey, why don't we just reject all email with a null return path?
That'll solve the backscatter problem! Who cares about reliability
anyway?
Very silly remark, in otherwise very silly post.
You _do_ understand that this idea was the logical conclusion of your
suggestion to use '-f nobody(_at_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)', and hence prevent the
sender of the
mail from getting any resulting bounces -- right?
I quoted that suggestion from the spf.pobox FAQ. :) I said I quoted it, but
had not put additional quotation marks around it.
N.B. I do not think Meng really meant to litterally use "nobody@" in his
example. He was, I believe, just demonstrating how one can easily change a
..forward file, to achieve the necessary rewriting, without having to
implement SRS.
P.S. I apologize for my somwhat crabby tone in my earlier posts today. Since
you have been with SPF from a very early date too, I believe, I failed to
see why the topic suddenly needed rehashing. But I had my say; I will step
back a bit now, and let others have theirs.
Cheers,
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx