Article View: comp.mail.headers
Article #167Re: Unreplyable addresses not considered illegal enough?
From: Tom Neff
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1991 06:37
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1991 06:37
13 lines
1217 bytes
1217 bytes
In article <BOB.91Mar10163331@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >I think that most mail users and administrators would agree that >unreplyable From: or Reply-To: lines are Wrong. Why is there no >stronger and more specific prohibition? It seems impracticable to burden every forwarding agent with the responsibility of verifying origination headers. The locus of prohibition should be the sender's site, where verification is inexpensive and sanctions are immediate and least-disruptive. Let us see a rundown of the most common kinds of unreplyable origination header, along with where they come from and what causes them. Then the right thing to do will suggest itself.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<60419802@bfmny0.BFM.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneffReferences:
<BOB.91Mar10163331@volitans.MorningStar.Com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Unreplyable addresses not considered illegal enough? Message-ID: <60419802@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Date: 11 Mar 91 06:37:23 GMT References: <BOB.91Mar10163331@volitans.MorningStar.Com> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Followup-To: comp.mail.headers Lines: 13