[EMAIL PROTECTED] said this stuff:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, ari wrote:
>
> > Section 5.3.3 does indeed state that the null return-path _is_ required for
> > use, however references itself with section 3.6 of RFC 821, which is the actual
> > specification of the SMTP protocol. Section 3.6 of RFC 821, however, does
> > _not_ state that the null return-path is required when sending bounces. It
> > clearly states that the null return-path is _one_ option:
>
> 5.3.3 of RFC 1123 amends 3.6 of RFC 821 stating "<>" is the _one_
> and _only_ option.
>
> This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path
> in the envelope; see Section 3.6 of RFC-821.
>
It's possible this is an amendment, but i am inclined to believe otherwise, as
other amendments are stated as such:
[4.1.3.4]
The description of the 110 reply on pp. 40-41 of RFC-959 is
incorrect; the correct description is as follows.
[4.2.2.2]
The Length field of a UDP header is incorrectly defined; it
includes the UDP header length (8).
[5.2.14]
The military time zones are specified incorrectly in RFC-822:
they count the wrong way from UT (the signs are reversed).
... whereas in this case, the reader is simply referred to RFC 821. It may be
argued that the errors stated are of a different nature, but the amendments of
a similar nature are generally given individual discussions. To me, it seems
like either an erroneous statement or an oversight from discussion. Perhaps
the statement just lacks the clarity i would like. Either way, i yield; i see
this discussion going only in circles.
> Perhaps I am not spammed by the right set of spammers but the amount of
> spams having a null return-path I have ever received is less than 1 % of
> the the total.
If you wish, i will forward you some of what my users complain about. We keep
a rather hefty spam-blocking list, but these are unstoppable with our current
anti-spam implementation (using the RBL will keep some legitimate mail from
us). About 5% of our spam yields a null return-path.
ari
--
.------------------------Ari Edelkind--------------------------.
Unix Systems and Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Health Research Institute (212) Phone: 578 0822
New York, NY [USA] Fax : 576 8442
`--------------------------------------------------------------'
