From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36364 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sender header? Date: 24 May 2001 17:31:17 -0400 Sender: prj@multivac.cwru.edu Message-ID: References: <01May23.141128edt.115245@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.115917edt.115250@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.143521edt.115214@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.153439edt.115213@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.163305edt.115259@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.172056edt.115272@gateway.intersys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035171962 8227 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:46:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:46:02 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 29269 invoked by alias); 24 May 2001 21:31:19 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 29264 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 21:31:18 -0000 Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (261@129.22.96.25) by gnus.org with SMTP; 24 May 2001 21:31:18 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 26641 invoked by uid 500); 24 May 2001 21:31:40 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: "\(ding\)" In-Reply-To: <01May24.172056edt.115272@gateway.intersys.com> (Stainless Steel Rat's message of "Thu, 24 May 2001 17:20:36 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 40 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36364 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36364 Stainless Steel Rat writes: > * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Thu, 24 May 2001 >| It is not the nature of DNS (or anything else) that the mail exchanger >| for domain.com must also accept mail for any other domain, such as >| random-sending-host.domain.com. > > Actually, it should. If it does not then steps should be taken to prevent > "random-sending-host.domain.com" from sending mail or to masquerade it. So you say. I can't find any such statement in the RFCs. > Canonical means that at least some effort has been made to ensure > the accuracy of the thing; That's completely wrong. Go find a dictionary. >| It isn't a canonical address if it isn't an address at all. > > But if login @ fqdn is not an address at all then something in the system > is not configured correctly. I repeat, yet again: where is that requirement in the RFC? >| You still have Received fields. Sender is unreliable anyway, since >| it's under the control of a possible malicious person. > > So is From, To, and just about everything else. Your point? That those fields should not be used to track down problems, because you have something better: Received. > Actually, proper DNS records are all that is required to make it work. False. If domain.com's mail servers accept mail for domain.com but not for random-sending-host.domain.com, then Sender (as you would have it) would not be an actual mailbox, even with the DNS records in place. paul