[IP] more on Why it is difficult to counter spam
Yup on extended lengh
Dave
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 23, 2004 10:59:53 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Why it is difficult to counter spam
Dave,
This thread is going on longer than usual for your mailing list, but I
think it highlights the kinds of confusions that surround attempts to
discuss spam issues.
It is important to clarify one point:
Spam conforms to Internet technical standards.
How about STD0010 (RFC0821), for example where it says
that the reverse-path contains the _source_ mailbox:
The first step in the procedure is the MAIL command. The
<reverse-path> contains the source mailbox.
MAIL <SP> FROM:<reverse-path> <CRLF>
1. RFC 821 and RFC2821 contain a conceptual and technical error about
the Mail From field. What is intriguing is that it took us 25 years to
notice it: Mail From is a "notifications" address, not an "author"
address. (Our confusion came from the fact that is is common for them
to be the same address.) The specifications basically defines the field
as serving BOTH purposes, which means they are problematic for
legitimate cases in which the notifications address needs to be
different from the author's address.
2. Yes, there are legitimate cases where the addresses are different.
Having the notifications (bounces) address be entirely unrelated to any
of the other RFC2822 or RFC2821 addresses is a common occurrence for
subscription-based (consent-based) bulk mailing list services. It turns
out that bounce-handling is a specialized service and often needs to be
done by a specialized, outsourced group.
d/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/