From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 24 09:57:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA11002 for current-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA10997 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA20055; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:57:10 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:57:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199707241657.KAA20055@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing In-Reply-To: <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com> References: <199707241422.HAA00957@hub.freebsd.org> <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > : To sum it up: The problem of spammers using bogus names to hide behind > : is a far, far greater problem than not being able to send mail to > : those comparatively few individuals without valid hostnames, so using > : the "99.9% vs .1%" value rule, you simply lose. :-) > > I beg to differ. Most machines which may validly receive email do *not* > have valid hostnames. That's irrelevant. Most machines which send mail send via a machine that *DOES* have valid hostnames, and the envelope uses that address. That's the way email has always worked. Nate