Re: Restricting the list
RANDY@mpa15ab.mv.unisys.com Wed, 07 February 1996 20:17 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19082;
7 Feb 96 15:17 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19078;
7 Feb 96 15:17 EST
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12425;
7 Feb 96 15:17 EST
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net
(8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA17059; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:16:31 -0500
Received: from bbmail1.unisys.com (bbmail1.unisys.com [192.63.200.5]) by
list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA17035 for
<ietf-smtp@list.cren.net>; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:16:17 -0500
Received: from mvdns1.mv-oc.unisys.com (mvdns1.mv.unisys.com [192.59.253.100])
by bbmail1.unisys.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA11776;
Wed, 7 Feb 1996 20:16:06 GMT
Received: from MPA15AB.MV.UNISYS.COM by mvdns1.mv-oc.unisys.com
(4.1/SMI-4.1-1.8) id AA19060; Wed, 7 Feb 96 20:25:26 GMT
Message-Id: <ECIO133117D5AB@MPA15AB>
Date: 07 FEB 96 12:15
X-Orig-Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@list.cren.net
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: RANDY@mpa15ab.mv.unisys.com
To: ietf-smtp%list.cren.net@mvdns1.mv.unisys.com,
NED%INNOSOFT.com@mvdns1.mv.unisys.com,
dcrocker%brandenburg.com@mvdns1.mv.unisys.com
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at
CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Restricting the list
In-Reply-To: Your message of "7 Feb 1996 07:40:22 -0800"
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0(beta) -- ListProcessor by CREN
I wonder if there would be any gain from having the list software
attempt to verify the return address on mail from unsubscribed people?
It seems that most of the junk has unreplyable return addresses.
Perhaps mail that wasn't from a subscriber, and which had a return
address that couldn't be verified would be routed to the moderator,
possibly after a period of retrying the VRFY?
And of course there is the question of what is the "return address" --
the MAIL FROM, or the FROM or SENDER or REPLY-TO? I'd suggest that if
any of them can be verified, the mail should be accepted. Or just use
MAIL FROM.
Sure, spammers can just pick addresses of innocent people and use them,
but a lot of the spam could be cut out, perhaps.
Also, it might be possible to make an attempt at confirming that the
claimed return path is the actual origin, by looking at the early
RECEIVED headers.
In that case, we'd have:
1. From subscriber? If so, accept it.
2. MAIL FROM verifiable and confirmed by first RECEIVED header? If
so, accept it.
3. Punt to moderator.
----
|Randall Gellens randy@mv.unisys.com|
|Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself|
- Restricting the list Jim Conklin
- Re: Restricting the list Ned Freed
- Re: Restricting the list Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: Restricting the list Roger Fajman
- Re: Restricting the list John W. Noerenberg
- PS -- Re: Restricting the list Nathaniel Borenstein
- Re: Restricting the list Nathaniel Borenstein
- Re: Restricting the list Jay
- Re: Restricting the list Ben Nowlin
- Re: PS -- Re: Restricting the list Ned Freed
- Re: Restricting the list Ned Freed
- Re: Restricting the list John W. Noerenberg
- Re: Restricting the list RANDY
- Re: Restricting the list Robert Moskowitz
- Re: Restricting the list keld
- Re: Restricting the list Lindsay
- Re: Restricting the list Einar Stefferud
- Re: Restricting the list Jim Conklin
- Re: Restricting the list Tim Kehres