On Feb 18,  8:19am, William O Ferry wrote:
} In muc.lists.netbsd.tech.userlevel, you wrote:
} >On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 09:17:33PM -0800, Michael Graff wrote:
} >> Perhaps he means "valid return envelopes"
} >
} >Yeah. Or the no DNS entry thing from Claus Assmans anti-spam rules:
} >
} ># no DNS entry? this is dangerous!
} >R$*<@$*$~P>$*  $#error $@ 4.1.8 $: 418 unresolvable host name $2$3, check your
} >  configuration.  
} 
}      I am not sure if this is the same thing I was running into, but please if
} you are going to consider adding such a rule try to make sure you're not
} blocking email from innocent users as well.  I have found that there is one
} site (can't remember which) that simply *refuses* to accept email from my
} domain, on the grounds that my host IP addresses do not have valid hostnames.

     As far as I'm concerned, if your system is misconfigured, then
tough!

} In fact they have no hostnames at all, this is something I have been fighting
} with my ISP for 3 months to do something about (a few FTP sites have refused

     If your ISP is incompetent, then get a new one.

}      To be fair however, I am probably coming from the opposite view of things.
} I personally don't understand this anti-spam stuff at all.  I have always taken
} the "innocent until proven guilty" stance, I do not want to risk executing an

     I agree, but I consider misconfigured systems to be guilty.

}      But *please* don't have the default setup throw out email on a condition
} that a site admin cannot do anything about.

     A site admin can do anything they want.

}-- End of excerpt from William O Ferry