From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Jul 24 12:12:46 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA18422
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA18410
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from East.Sun.COM ([129.148.1.241]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id MAA01783; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:12:08 -0700
Received: from suneast.East.Sun.COM by East.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id PAA18249; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:12:08 -0400
Received: from compound.east.sun.com by suneast.East.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA02098; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:12:06 -0400
Received: (from alk@localhost) by compound.east.sun.com (8.8.6/8.7.3) id OAA03585; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:12:05 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:12:05 -0500 (CDT)
Reply-To: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM
Message-Id: <199707241912.OAA03585@compound.east.sun.com>
From: Tony Kimball <Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: jfieber@indiana.edu
Cc: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing 
References: <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com>
	<Pine.BSF.3.96.970724123831.9603A-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
X-Face: O9M"E%K;(f-Go/XDxL+pCxI5<W_e*r7B8ojMD.5+qDgOp4/\gTQEgbOoBqf:Vtl*aW:<;9/
	UIVk'U^XhYg+v#r~*X<$Q=_ik@5:%E}pl]9|9|:]WLW8n:fLgg0~cfwWRBQxK/HSG0b1D/gljJC$qp
	b=HDF@+"H<|fXy`w#$8#6A"!F:>*gr[=FN@Y`cl1.Tn
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoth John Fieber on Thu, 24 July:
: 
: Maybe I missed something here, but there is a big difference
: between having a valid name for the posting machine and having a
: valid name in the return address.  Rejecting mail for the latter
: case seems perfectly acceptable to me.  Bouncing because of the
: former is a bit more problematic.

Nah, I was the one missing something.  I had not realized that
the issue was limited to refusing a port connection from an
unidentifiable peer.  If that is the case, my point, while still
valid and correct, is entirely mooted.  (Unfortunately the spam
countermeasure is almost entirely 'mooted' as well.)