Re: RE: [Asrg] Some data on the validity of MAIL FROM addresses

[Kee Hinckley <[e-mail]>]

At 5:22 PM +0100 5/20/03, Jon Kyme wrote:
>  > At 4:25 PM +0100 5/20/03, Jon Kyme wrote:
>>  >Sorry, what? Your justification for not doing BCP is that it's
>>  >"non-trivial" to do it on the software you've chosen?
>>
>>
>>  There are far more reasons to choose a piece of software than just
>>  it's external interface.
>
>I can't imagine a good technical reason for picking software that makes it
>practically impossible to do the job to the same standard as BCP, given the
>choice that exists.

Well, I replied off list because I didn't think this was on topic. 
But I'm just pointing out that we're looking at this from a problem 
of how mail systems interoperate with each other.  When you're in a 
company buying a mail system, your concerns are:
	- ease of maintenance
	- ease of use for users
	- functionality for users
	- how it works with other systems
The order may vary, but the last one is almost always going to be 
last.  Furthermore, it *looks* like a check-off item.  That fact that 
some mail systems "don't play well with others" doesn't come out 
until it's *way* too late.

>Anyway (back to the original point), Hotmail seems to do better than Yahoo
>on the specific issue (response to RCPT TO <non-existent-rcpt>) we were
>discussing. It's clear that some operators can do this on very large
>distributed systems. Others can't - or won't.

It could well be a "won't".  By deferring the reject until after the 
DATA command you make it very difficult to probe for valid addresses 
to spam.
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg