On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:49:11 -0600
Dustin D Trammell <dtrammell(_at_)citadel(_dot_)com> wrote:
I do not see any problem with allowing anonymous mail to be injected
into a new system. However, it must be tagged and easily identifiable
as such, so that sites may state a policy such as "We don't accept
anonymous messages here."
A direct implication of my earlier consent/policy post is that such
rules would be an amalgam of both site-wide and per-end-user rules.
Removing the ability to spoof source addresses so that the entity
sending the "anonymous" mail looks like someone else, I don't see that
we have a problem. Many sites may be fine with accepting anonymous
messages. Sites that accept postings for newsgroups may. Many will
not. The choices available with which to deal with anonymous
messaging is what we need to facilitate, not whether or not it is
allowed to happen.
The fact that it is an amalgam becomes critical for ISPs and other
service deployments as it allows them the cost savings of rejecting
anonymous mail by default, but then also allowing anonymous mail to be
accepted for the specific end users that request it.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.