On 9/5/99 10:04 PM, Stan Ryckman <[log in to unmask]> wrote...
>At 05:36 PM 9/5/99 -0600, Ben Parker wrote:
>>On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 16:53:29 EDT, Michael Holloway <[log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Apparently, Brightlight filters out the message because of the blank
>>>Return-Path line, and some bug causes the messages to disappear into the
>>>ether.
>>
>>It's not a bug, it's just that they are flat out blocking such mail, an act
>>which makes them non-compliant with internet mail standards.
>
>As far as I know, internet mail standards do not require anyone
>to accept any particular mail, either as final recipient or on behalf
>of the final recipient.

Huh? Circular reasoning 101.

Internet mail works because of an implied cooperation. Site A agrees to
accept mail from Site B, provided Site B is responsible and follows
Internet standards. While Site A (or their filtering package) may
arbitrarily decide not to accept legal mail from Site B, it won't make
them popular with their users.

>>Check the LISTSERV
>>Support FAQ:
>>
>>  http://www.lsoft.com/lsv-faq.html#5.16
>
>The RFC excerpts quoted there, as I read them, say that it is compliant
>to send such mail.  They do not say that it is non-compliant to
>refuse to accept such mail (although the FAQ itself makes the claim).

See above. Note site wants to drop lots of good mail for no legitimate
reason. Hell, AOL gets enough slack for dropping lots of mail that *does*
violate standards.

>[snip]
>While I do think it's a BadThing (tm) that they block this way,
>I think that this (the non-compliance) argument is not a good one
>to use against it.

How about: use Brightlight, and you won't get some legitimate mail.

I've never advocated the use of third-party filtering systems. Mail admin
should use their own, if any. And I'm not even big on that (it should be
an option), when mail clients allow such a high level of user empowerment
these days.


--
Adam Bailey    | Chicago, Illinois
[log in to unmask] | Finger/Web for PGP
[log in to unmask] | http://www.lull.org/adam/