From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 24 09:49:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA10492 for current-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [195.1.171.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA10487 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:49:12 -0700 (PDT) From: sthaug@nethelp.no Received: (qmail 3016 invoked by uid 1001); 24 Jul 1997 16:49:00 +0000 (GMT) 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 -0500 (CDT)" References: <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.28.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:49:00 +0200 Message-ID: <3014.869762940@verdi.nethelp.no> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > : To sum it up: The problem of spammers using bogus names to hide behind > : is a far, far greater problem than not being able to send mail to > : those comparatively few individuals without valid hostnames, so using > : the "99.9% vs .1%" value rule, you simply lose. :-) > > 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. Nope. Let's reformulate it a little bit: Most machines which may validly receive email through a direct SMTP transaction across the Internet, have valid hostnames. This *includes* dialup users, for which the ISP needs to have the dialup addresses in his DNS (both forward and reverse). This *excludes* users which receive email through some sort of relay - in this that case it's the job of the relay to perform necessary rewriting. Checking for bogus names as a way to exclude spam is only going to get more popular. Better get used to it. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no