From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 2 19:49:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA07673 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 2 May 1997 19:49:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from irbs.irbs.com (jc@irbs.irbs.com [199.182.75.129]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA07668 for ; Fri, 2 May 1997 19:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jc@localhost) by irbs.irbs.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA21064; Fri, 2 May 1997 22:49:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19970502224948.20236@irbs.com> Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 22:49:48 -0400 From: John Capo To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SPAM target References: <3.0.1.32.19970502110243.007b3dc0@pop.pitt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.69 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970502110243.007b3dc0@pop.pitt.edu>; from John Duncan on Fri, May 02, 1997 at 11:02:43AM -0400 X-Organization: IRBS Engineering, (954) 792-9551 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Quoting John Duncan (jddst19+@pitt.edu): > > I've always wondered this, which doesn't apply in this case. Why doesn't > the government regulate addresses such that all sender and reply-to > addresses have to be valid addresses within a valid domain? It doesn't > matter if it's a bot or anything, it just can't be "yyyzzz@xyxy.com" or No government anything please. Checking for a valid envelope address works fine. May 2 13:11:12 irbs sendmail[5241]: Ruleset check_mail () rejection: 418 ... unresolvable host name spacemailer.com http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/%7Eca/email/english.html http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ ftp://ftp.irbs.com/pub/sendmail John Capo IRBS Engineering