From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 24 10:01:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA11394 for current-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA11389 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA13068; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:59:39 -0700 (PDT) To: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:01:48 CDT." <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:59:39 -0700 Message-ID: <13063.869763579@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I beg to differ. Most machines which may validly receive email do *not* > have valid hostnames. Using the majority-minority rule, *you* lose. > That's reality. That's sure news to me - every machine I've dealt with over the last couple of years, absolutely without exception, has had a perfectly valid hostname. What twisted kind of reality do you live in? ;-) And it's also beside the point - I'm not against such machines receiving mail, simply generating it. If they want to generate mail then is it so much to ask to have them relay it through a legit host? I don't think so. > Please do not intentionally damage global email. The system can only global email is already irretrievably damaged and quite possibly on its last legs. What we're talking about here are strategies for surviving in a post-spammer era and simply ignoring the problem and leaving things wide open is not the answer we're looking for here. Jordan