Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA05864; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.11); Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:39:55 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA05794; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gw-nl1.philips.com (gw-nl1.philips.com [192.68.44.33]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA05776; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:39:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl1.philips.com with ESMTP id QAA06250 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:39:40 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from Jos.Backus@nl.origin-it.com) Received: from hal.mpn.cp.philips.com (hal.mpn.cp.philips.com [130.139.64.195]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.8.5/8.6.10-1.2.2m-970826) with SMTP id QAA10868 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:39:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 23538 invoked by uid 666); 19 Aug 1998 14:40:03 -0000 Message-ID: <19980819164003.A7592@hal.mpn.cp.philips.com> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:40:03 +0200 From: Jos Backus To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: VRFY discussion Reply-To: Jos Backus References: <19980819093049.A14602@hal.mpn.cp.philips.com> <199808191439.QAA00274@quill> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.1i In-Reply-To: <199808191439.QAA00274@quill>; from Norbert Bollow on Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 04:39:04PM +0200 X-Files: The Truth is out there! List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 04:39:04PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Nobody has time to learn everything, and be competent about everything. Of course, thanks. > Sure. But this should not be done by robots unless if this probe can be > done with a message which the recipient wants to receive anyway. Yes. > Yes. This point should be made in some RFC which is intended to be read > by site administrators, and not in the DRUMS documents. Yes, methinks DRUMS should stay away from it (as far as I interpret its charter, anyway). > Which directory service would you use to verify e.g. that > is a valid e-mail address, while > should be reported as an error? The directory service would be able to supply you with information that bollow@dns.cyberlink.ch allows you to have, if any. > Spam is a problem. But why do you think the problem would get bigger > if the spammers did automated address validation before sending their > garbage? No, but it makes it easier for them to make their service more ``reliable'' (yuck). > This doesn't need an additional response code... the appropriate means > to communicate something like this is to put VRFY in the response to > EHLO if you're willing to genuinely try to VRFY addresses. That sounds like a good idea, yes. > That is true. Maybe you could tell me about your work on the real > solutions? (If this work is not directly related to the goals of DRUMS, > please use private mail for that.) Um, I'm into developing firewall software :-/ Groetjes, -- Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ "Reliability means never _/ _/ _/ having to say you're sorry." _/ _/_/_/ -- D. J. Bernstein _/ _/ _/ _/ Jos.Backus@nl.origin-it.com _/_/ _/_/_/ use Std::Disclaimer;