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

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

Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>:
> 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.

You are correct.  The path may *become* invalid without putting the
sending MTA retroactively in violation.  It must however *be* valid
at time of transmission.  That is the plain meaning of 4.1.1.4.
 
> 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.

Yakov is correct that that would be a new requiremwnt.  But "MUST
always be a valid address" is not what I am maintaining, nor is it
Hector's position unless I have misunderstood him.

We are simply maintaining that sending MTAs MUST issue a valid return
path at time of transmission.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

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