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

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

Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>:
> } RFC2821 says the Return-Path has to be the same address that was
> } presented to the MAIL command.
> 
> So what?  MX1 isn't any party to the protocol exchange between MTA1 and
> MX2.  The reverse-path is completely valid as far as MTA1 can tell; if
> MX2 responds 5xx, MTA1 will do the right thing.  You still haven't shown
> me how or why any of this affects what happens if MX1 becomes party to
> a separate SMTP transaction initiated by MX2, whether involving the same
> or any other mailbox.

I don't see how the presence of MXes matters.  Are you maintaining that 
what's in the MAIL FROM need not be a valid reply address?
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

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