From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat May 3 06:34:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA28713 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 06:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from digestive.csv.warwick.ac.uk (csubl@digestive.csv.warwick.ac.uk [137.205.148.136]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA28704 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 06:34:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Mr M P Searle Message-Id: <5606.199705031334@digestive.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Received: by digestive.csv.warwick.ac.uk id OAA05606; Sat, 3 May 1997 14:34:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: SPAM target In-Reply-To: <19970502224948.20236@irbs.com> from John Capo at "May 2, 97 10:49:48 pm" To: jc@irbs.com (John Capo) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 14:34:01 +0100 (BST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Quoting John Duncan (jddst19+@pitt.edu): > > > > I've always wondered this, which doesn't apply in this case. Why doesn't > > the government regulate addresses such that all sender and reply-to > > addresses have to be valid addresses within a valid domain? It doesn't > > matter if it's a bot or anything, it just can't be "yyyzzz@xyxy.com" or > > No government anything please. Checking for a valid envelope > address works fine. > > May 2 13:11:12 irbs sendmail[5241]: Ruleset check_mail () rejection: 418 ... unresolvable host name spacemailer.com > > http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/%7Eca/email/english.html > http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ > ftp://ftp.irbs.com/pub/sendmail > > John Capo > IRBS Engineering > A problem with any of these 'check for a valid reply address' - people who just put their address in the sig, and don't put a valid reply. (To stop them being spammed. Argh.)