Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 22:48:25 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG>, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Rejecting spam, accepting valid mail (was: Mail blocked) Message-ID: <3C8B01B9.D7BE84DC@mindspring.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020307094130.01f59240@nospam.lariat.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20020306234510.01ee0180@nospam.lariat.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20020306234510.01ee0180@nospam.lariat.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20020307094130.01f59240@nospam.lariat.org> <3cg03ccef4.03c@localhost.localdomain> <4.3.2.7.2.20020307221616.00cb9980@nospam.lariat.org> <20020308190102.B679@sydney.worldwide.lemis.com> <d1lmd1dwzm.md1@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > It isn't an invalid hostname, it's an invalid message ID and, AFAIK, > it's only invalid to a very few who choose to interpret a part of it > as a host name. It's a de-facto standard that Message ID content > doesn't matter; if some RFC proposes that it should matter, I guess we > can only whine that the change of policy is a big bother and choose when > or whether to comply. Compliance with RFC 1123 means that it must contain an "@", minimally, as a non-optional value. If the value to the right of the "@", before the closing ">" is present, it is acceptable to interpret it as a "domain part", and require that it be valid. The definition of "valid" here, though, is real loose. > If "clearly" means "very likely", then yes. Few would blame you for not > worrying about the other, more unlikely cases. > > I assume that the above is not a personal accusation, but allow me to > warn about the easily misused word "defraud", given that libel juries > can more accurately judge the inference than the implication. > > defraud, tr.v., To take from or deprive of by fraud; to swindle. > > Or see http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=defraud Actually, his use of the term is correct, as it applies to the fields being interpreted as claims of identity, as far as U.S. wire fraud statutes are concerned. One of the original crackdowns on crackers, and one that is still used today as one of the charges against them, is wire fraud, by claiming a fradulent identity, when providing the identity to a remote system. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C8B01B9.D7BE84DC>