> From: "q question" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:30:52 -0500
>
> >From: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
> >Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:06:00 -0600
> >
> >It's also making some broken assumptions about how certain conventions in
> >the
> >local-part of an SMTP envelope recipient address translate into implicit
> >relaying requests -- these conventions are not part of the SMTP
> >specification,
> >and qmail doesn't use them. The fact that sendmail (or Domino, or
> >Exchange,
> >or whatever) is broken enough to do so should not implicate properly
> >implemented SMTP servers.
>
>
> I appreciate your describing this in detail. I'm going to need some time to
> reflect on these assumptions.
The particular assumption that Charles didn't explain is that user%host2&host1
or host2|user@host1 will be relayed by host1 to user@host2.
Certainly software that does this is broken, but it's also perfectly legal for
first%last@host1 or first!last@host1 to be delivered to an account on that
machine. To assume that the only reason such an address would be accepted is
to relay it is totally bogus.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
