OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: null reverse-path
From: adi (adisatunet.com)
Date: Tue Jul 04 2000 - 00:03:46 CDT

On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 09:51:30PM -0500, Ronny Haryanto wrote:
> I don't think so. About ten lines above it it says:
> Support empty reverse path |5.2.9 |x| | | | |
      ^^^^^^^

Mentioning another line _is_ intentional, because it use, explicitly,
'accept'. Please consider that there are many words 'accept' and
'refuse' which used in the rfc. But why should for the statement
above the author use 'support'? Should support, in this case, would
be identical with 'accept'?

Again, I don't like the idea of rejecting (refusing) the null
reverse-path, but if we want it to become standard, then it should
said clearly.

But, as Brad (brk at skynet.be) said to me: "And they'd probably get
themselves put on any number of various black lists, etc....". I
guess, even in the real world, this behaviour (rejecting null
reverse-path) would not be accepted. Don't know if there is such a
host that would be listed in RBL or something, just because she
reject mail with null reverse-path.

Now, it's time to lurking again :-)

Salam,

P.Y. Adi Prasaja