I appreciate your pointing this out.
>From: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "q question" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
>Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:24:49 -0500
>
> > 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.
>
>
><< attach3 >>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
