Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>]

On Dec 1,  1:34am, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
}
} I am saying that I may refuse mail becayse that path has become invalid
} and be in strict conformance with RFC2821.

I don't disagree with that.

What I disagree with is the claim that the *sending* system is in violation
of RFC2821 because the return-path has become invalid.  Put another way, I
don't agree that RFC2821 *justifies* your refusal of the message, merely
that it does not *prohibit* such refusal.

Yakov's point (unless I'm completely confused) is that it would constitute
a new requirement for *sending* systems if the return-path "MUST" always be
a valid address.  Hector says that it would not be a new requirement, and I
still haven't been convinced that Hector is correct.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg