Re: Why SRS really sucks

>You are right and we know that.
>Trust me, we normally act RFC compliant whereever this makes sense.

RFC's weren't made for you to break whenever you feel like it.  If 
that is their purpose, then why have them at all?  The reason for 
RFC's is so that one can have _some_ basis for knowing what other 
systems will do.  "You are right and we know that" means: RFC's are 
useless for determining what another domain will do with a piece of 
mail, while at the same time pretending to "conform to them in most 
cases".  This isn't a matter of degree, its all-or-nothing.  You're 
either compliant, or you're not.

>But if we find something which is contraproductive, and there is no other
>way to circumvent the problem, we are (from time to time) violating RFCs.
>
>Example:

[snip] Your example is worthless and not a representative example of 
the type of traffic being discussed.  The RFC (and I in my previous 
mail) said that an MTA cannot assign semantics to the local part 
UNLESS THE ADDRESS IS THE MTA'S OWN DOMAIN.  This means your example 
is perfectly legitimate mail handling, and also means it has nothing 
to do with SRS signing from a separate domain.  Basically, we're 
talking about MAIL FROM:, not RCPT TO:.

What do you do in this case (using your own pseudo-SMTP)?

Connection to UCEPROTECT-Server established.
R: 220 recipientdomain SMTP ready.
S: HELO anything :-)
R: 250 Ok
S: mail from: SPAMTRAP@senderdomain

What comes next?  Will you reject this mail?  Can you be certain it 
is not a valid email?

My point is that in the MAIL FROM: your MTA has NO BUSINESS 
WHATSOEVER determining what meanings may be encoded in the local part 
of the address.  When looking at the MAIL FROM:, your MTA _must_ 
consider ONLY the domain part of the address.


--
-- =========================
Tom Lahti
Tx3 Online Services

(888)4-TX3-SVC (489-3782)
http://www.tx3.net/
-- =========================