From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Jul 24 10:43:57 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA14362
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (fallout.campusview.indiana.edu [149.159.1.1])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA14352
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (jfieber@localhost)
	by fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA09634;
	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:42:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:42:24 -0500 (EST)
From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>
To: Tony Kimball <Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM>
cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing 
In-Reply-To: <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970724123831.9603A-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Tony Kimball wrote:

> 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.  

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.

-john