rfc 1123 issue

[Bob Braden <[e-mail]>]

----- Begin Included Message -----

From [e-mail] Fri Mar  4 09:00:32 1994
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 1994 10:59:34 CST
From: [e-mail] (Michael Nittmann)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: rfc 1123 issue
Content-Length: 1427
X-Lines: 34

Hi,
this tcp-ip list does not seem to work, so I send it by hand to some 
individuals:

>From [e-mail] Fri, 04 Mar 1994 10:40:26 CST
>From: [e-mail]
>To: [e-mail]
>Date: Fri, 04 Mar 1994 10:40:26 CST
>Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>Subject: RFC 1123, 5.2.9, SMTP FROM:<>
>
>Why is this empty return path support really necessary? I believe it is a reclic
>of features to help interactively debug mailers. Some of those features have
>caused major headaches in the past (run commands under sendmail's privileges,
>see Mr. Morrison's 'worm'). 
>Especially for error returns, it is very important to know which one on the
>-- eventually transiting intermediate -- systems or gateways inserted it.
>And I see especially no need to send around anonymous letters on the network.
>
>Can we find a consensus to update 1123 to eliminate an empty return path? IT
>would hinder remailing hackers and close a potential security and abuse hole.
>
>Mike
>
>============================================================================
>Michael Nittmann                                                608 787 3792
>Principal Communications Analyst                            608 787 2552 FAX
>The Trane Company
>3600 Pammel Creek Road, La Crosse, WI 54601               [e-mail]
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>




----- End Included Message -----