Subject: Re: Spam suggestion...
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: David Maxwell <>
List: current-users
Date: 02/25/2004 15:49:14
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:36:12PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Monday, February 23, 2004 at 11:20:09 (-0500), David Maxwell wrote: ]
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 05:22:51AM -0700, Herb Peyerl wrote:
> > > I'm told this won't work because lots of developers forge mail to
> > > make it seem like they're sending from but through their
> > > own mail servers.
> > 
> > I think that developers should be convinced to adjust their behaviour.
> No, they shouldn't.
> It is _not_ "forgery" to use a different sender address than belongs to
> the originating mail relay.

This isn't the place to discuss this. Come over to the ASRG list.

> It is also not "forgery" to use a different sender address than is given
> in the RFC [2]822 originator header(s).
> These are standard and expected behaviours for RFC-[2]822 e-mail sent
> via SMTP, and often even the use of an alias or ~/.forward file will
> have the same effect.  These protocols were designed to work this way.

Yes, but the network has changed, and its time for people to realize
that the protocols and behaviours that were appropriate 'back in the
day' are too open to abuse to continue to be used unchanged.

David Maxwell,| --> The only difference I see
between voodoo and marketing research is that voodoo sometimes works! 
						- Leonard Stern