Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]

"Chris Haynes" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please understand, I'm not inviting a reprise of arguments which have taken
> place elsewhere, I'm trying to lift the level of debate to one of process
> related to the 'definition' of SMTP.
> 
> I'll first just re-state the problem and give it bounds.

  That's the best summary I've seen to date.  My question now is,
(using the generic "you"):

  What do you mean, the "same" message is being forwarded?

> How, and from where, would one get an 'authoritative' ruling about
> the conformance or non-conformance of forwarding (using the origin's
> MAIL FROM with a new RCPT TO) to the extant SMTP architecture?

  I would like an answer to that question, too.

  .forward files are not required for SMTP to work.  Entirely
equivalent functionality can be obtained without using a third parties
name in "MAIL FROM".  That functionality requires changes to the sites
using .forward files, and nothing else.

  Alan DeKok.