Lucky for them RFC2822 supersedes RFC822, and doesn't mention (at a quick glance) any information about what the sender is recommended to be (or MUST, REQUIRED to, or SHALL be). (note - recommended, not MUST. Please see RFC2119 for details on these - of course, RFC822 was written some time before RFC2119, but as it's relatively similar to the English language meanings of the words I'd say that it's still relevant) HTH. On 6/03/2007, at 2:01 PM, John @ netTRUST wrote:
Hello all-
In investigating an issue involving a large online NZ company's outbound email - I read RFC822 which I have quoted below.
I note that this company is currently making use of apparently unmonitored return addresses which generate an auto reply.
Given that my reading of RFC822 would suggest this is contrary to this (and other relevant sections), and the obvious issues that this can cause for spam filtering mechanisms like TMDA, I would like to know whether others find this practice inappropriate, and if so, what action (if any) do they take against the perpetrators?
Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages
Since the critical function served by the "Sender" field is identification of the agent responsible for sending mail and since computer programs cannot be held accountable for their behavior, it is strongly recommended that when a computer pro- gram generates a message, the HUMAN who is responsible for that program be referenced as part of the "Sender" field mail- box specification.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
!DSPAM:22,45ecbbf824501612510772!