On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:51:30 +0200, Alessandro Vesely
<vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it>
wrote:
Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
To be sure, it sounds like the right thing to do. As yet, though,
there's no justification in doing it other than that queue clogging
will often result if you don't. Is it *semantically* correct to reject
mail just because bounces for the sender are undeliverable?
That question seems ill-conditioned to me. It is semantically correct to
reject
mail because the *recipient* is undeliverable.
The question is written as intended, but we appear to be in agreement.
I still want to know why sender verification is a good idea, though. If
the recipient validation is sufficient to reduce backscatter and queue
cloggage, why *are* we insisting upon a semantic disapproval of invalid
sender addresses? What kind of high horse are we on, to insist that even
under normal mail delivery circumstances, sender addresses of
less-than-perfect form may not be used? Certainly, to me, this looks like
an anti-spam tool which, while tempting to the eye of the postmaster
wishing to reduce tempfailing blowback, is already seeing diminished
usefullness and which is known to break legitimate mail.
Cheers,
Sabahattin
--
Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail<at>sabahattin<dash>gucukoglu<dot>com>
Address harvesters, snag this: feedme(_at_)yamta(_dot_)org
Phone: +44 20 88008915
Mobile: +44 7986 053399
http://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/