RFC822 (Identification of sender in email)
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.
On 6/3/07 2:01 PM, "John @ netTRUST"
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.
RFC822 has been obsoleted by RFC2822, which has dropped those particular semantics. 3.6.2. Originator fields The originator fields of a message consist of the from field, the sender field (when applicable), and optionally the reply-to field. [snip] The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the message. The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible for the writing of the message. The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message. For example, if a secretary were to send a message for another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the "Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in the "From:" field. If the originator of the message can be indicated by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the "Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used. Otherwise, both fields SHOULD appear. So, an auto-sender does not appear to be against 2822. -- Michael Newbery IP Architect TelstraClear Limited Tel: +64-4-920 3102 Mobile: +64-29-920 3102 Fax: +64-4-920 3361
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!
participants (3)
-
John ＠ netTRUST -
Michael Newbery -
Nathan Ward