Re: MTS transparency and anonymity

> I wonder how many spam filters reject blah@[]. Does anyone on the list 
> know?

And if they do reject it, is that a bug or a feature?

Lots of bogus criteria are employed by spam filters.  So I don't think 
we should use whether a spam filter rejects a particular kind of 
address as a criterion for whether or not to use that address as a 
token of anonymity.  Spam filters have to adapt to changes in spam, 
they may as well adapt to changes in standards also.

More to the point, how many MTAs and UAs barf on blah@[] ?

Also I intended <anonymous@[]> as an example, not as a well-thought, 
concrete proposal.  I literally spent about two seconds thinking about 
it before suggesting it.  I do think it makes more sense to use a 
domain literal of some kind rather than a domain name that could cause 
DNS queries.

Keith