Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 14:34:01 +0100 (BST) From: Mr M P Searle <csubl@csv.warwick.ac.uk> To: jc@irbs.com (John Capo) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SPAM target Message-ID: <5606.199705031334@digestive.csv.warwick.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <19970502224948.20236@irbs.com> from John Capo at "May 2, 97 10:49:48 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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 (<source@spacemailer.com>) rejection: 418 <source@spacemailer.com>... 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.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5606.199705031334>