From owner-freebsd-chat  Thu Jul 24 17:59:37 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA05736
          for chat-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (fallout.campusview.indiana.edu [149.159.1.1])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA05709
          for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (jfieber@localhost)
	by fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA10590;
	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:59:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:59:02 -0500 (EST)
From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>
To: Tony Kimball <Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM>
cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing 
In-Reply-To: <199707242035.PAA03874@compound.east.sun.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970724194605.10362B-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Tony Kimball wrote:

> So far, the only *effective* defense I have seen proposed is killing
> mail from well-specified originators.  I really don't object to the
> MAIL FROM: filtering, as described on 'current' recently, but I do
> question its effectiveness.

It might be effective in preventing new small-time operatings
from becoming big time operators.  A beginner who doesn't own
their own domain name and equipment is more likely to hide behind
ficticous return addresses.  If, by rejecting messages without
valid return addresses, we can make such ventures unproductive, I
would say progress has been made.

-john