From: Charles Lindsey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 16 1997 - 06:09:10 CDT
Brad Templeton <email@example.com> wrote:
>So after much debate, what was the feeling on adding language to this and/or
> If the "reply address" (The Reply-to value, or if not present the
> From value) MUST be a valid E-mail address which can be mailed to
> using standard SMTP based mailers, or, if it is not such an address,
> MUST be one of the tags indicating the address is not valid.
We should not put rrequirements into the standard that cannot be enforced.
How can you enforce this one?
>Then, do we wish to address the question of is the poster authorized to
>set the Reply-to to the address in question. Ie should we also add:
> If the poster is not authorized by the holder of any
> address specified in the Reply-to: line to direct replies to
> that address, the poster MUST add the string "Unauthorized" to
> the front of the comment area of the relevant address, or the
> article is non-conformant.
And this one is even harder to enforce. Who can tell? I am away from home
and use a friend's account. I put my own address in the Reply-To field.
There is no way my friend's local system can determine whether it is valid
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------- Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5