Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:51:30 +0200, Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it>
wrote:
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?
Huh? To address the junk that does address the user's inbox?
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com