[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bounce/System Notification Address Verification

2005-06-28 21:51:00

I am not rejecting anything. All I am suggesting is that when more than one recipient is to be used for the message, to generate a separate copy for each recipient (with only that recipient listed as the "To") so there are separate copies (as would occur with multi-recipient [messages where each recipient is in a different domain] at the MTA stage ).

Why should an MTA or MUA bother to do this? This part of the SMTP standard has been stable since c. 1980 and it has _never_ required this.

OK - Not a Rule but only the usual occurrence with <> messages such as "can not deliver" messages. If those functions that generate multi-recipient messages with a <> from would just create a separate copy for each recipient it would make SPAM detection (of <> messages) much easier

no it wouldn't. it would just mean that spammers would have to use another return address besides <> or send only one RCPT per session. it's not as if the check you propose imposes much of a hurdle for spammers to clear.

spammers have consistently shown themselves to be very flexible at adapting to far more substantial countermeasures. and it's much easier for spammers to adapt than for the vast installed base to adapt. it is counterproductive to impose meaningless restrictions on legitimate senders. in the long term this only adds complexity and damages transparency of the mail system without doing anything to discourage spam.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>