Re: Returned mail spam - SpamAssassin

This is a discussion on Re: Returned mail spam - SpamAssassin ; > what "own rules"? I'm talking that forwarding without changing sender's > address is broken already and I described how and why. SPS just highlights > this problem and SRS is trying to solve it... I don't see this necessity ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Returned mail spam

  1. Re: Returned mail spam


    > what "own rules"? I'm talking that forwarding without changing sender's
    > address is broken already and I described how and why. SPS just highlights
    > this problem and SRS is trying to solve it...



    I don't see this necessity to change the sender address anywhere
    in RFC 2821. In fact it differentiates between lists where you do
    change the sender and aliases where you do not.


    Joseph Brennan
    Columbia University Information Technology



  2. Re: Returned mail spam

    "Joseph Brennan" wrote in message
    news:fu31iq$2sio$1@FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw...
    > > what "own rules"? I'm talking that forwarding without changing sender's
    > > address is broken already and I described how and why. SPS just

    highlights
    > > this problem and SRS is trying to solve it...

    >
    >
    > I don't see this necessity to change the sender address anywhere
    > in RFC 2821. In fact it differentiates between lists where you do
    > change the sender and aliases where you do not.


    RFC 2821 was written well before the RFCs that suggest SPF and SRS
    (4406-4409).



+ Reply to Thread