From: <Jay@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:08:25 -0400
Message-ID: <960925140825_292975714@emout15.mail.aol.com>
To: dcrocker@brandenburg.com, ERIC@vm.se.lsoft.com
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Preventing replying

In a message dated 96-09-25 11:18:57 EDT, dcrocker@brandenburg.com (Dave
Crocker) writes:

> >Basically, this is never  going to work in practice, so  I think the best
>  >is to drop the issue. The reasonable thing to do is make the message come
>  >from an auto-responder which returns a blurb explaining the situation.
>  
>  	Eric,
>  
>  	It HAS to work.  The user irritation of getting failed-delivery
>  messages in these situations will be intolerable.

Having missed the beginning of the discussion, this is probably a really dumb
question, but:  Why is it that they can't provide a reasonable return address
for the voice mail?  Won't the person have an e-mail address themselves?

I think it is a dangerous precedent to allow mail that can't possibly be
replied to.  Requiring valid source addresses is an important part of
fighting spam..

Jay Levitt
Manager, Mail Systems Group
AOL