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

["Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>]

Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>:
> It is, according to what you (and ESR) have claimed.  The address from which
> the queued message was sent is no longer valid.  If, as you assert, it is a
> MUST requirement of 2821 that the return-path be valid, then any SMTP server
> that continues delivery of a queued message for which the sender has since
> become invalid, is violating the protocol.

I didn't say that.  There's a nuance here you're missing.

The sending MTA is conformant with RFC2821, as I read it, if it issues 
a Return-Path back to the user that preserves the MAIL FROM information,
e.g. is valid at the time the message was generated.  There is a MUST 
attached to that requirement.

The receiving MTA is conformant if, upon ascertaining that the Return-Path
is invalid, it refuses the mail for that reason.

The fact that said Return-Path may have become invalid after transmission and
before receipt is an interesting edge case which does not affect the
meaning of RFC2821 in any way.  
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

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