On Wed, 7 May 1997 15:48:52 -0400 Brad Knowles said:
>On Wed, 7 May 1997 11:31:39 -0400, Eric Thomas <[log in to unmask]>
>said:
>
>>         Source routes in RFC821 headers however remain a useful tool
>> to date for all sorts of local mail configuration purposes (route
>> mail for box X to Y even though the MX record says otherwise because
>> of firewall issue Z, etc).  I just can't think of any excuse for not
>> accepting them, at a minimum they should be ignored but not rejected.
>
>    There are no RFC 821 headers, just SMTP envelope addresses.
>
>
>    Based on the principle outlined in section 7.5 of
>draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-04.txt (previously quoted here), we
>determined that for operational reasons, we cannot afford to accept
>mail that has source routed envelope addresses (at least, not in
>the domain part).
>
>    We recognize the value of testing mail via a third party, and
>have not turned off support for source-routed addresses in the local
>part (i.e., the standard "%" hack), but if it becomes enough of an



Let me get this straight.  A documented standard you won't support,
but a hack that has never been fully documented or support you will?



>operational issue for us, we may be forced to do that as well.
>
>
>    When the health of the AOL email system as a whole is at
>stake, we'll do whatever we have to in order to protect it (and
>our customers that depend on it).
>
>    We'll stick to the letter and spirit of the standards as best we
>can, but when push comes to shove, we'll fall back on the principle
>outlined in section 7.5 of draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-04.txt, as I
>expect any other reasonable person or site would do.
>
>
>    In fact, it is my opinion that we've been considerably more
>lenient for considerably longer than what I consider to be anywhere
>close to "reasonable", and now we've been forced to make a larger
>correction than would otherwise have been necessary.
>
>    I regret the necessity to make that larger correction, but to
>paraphrase statements made to me by Internet email experts more
>knowledgable than I:
>
>            RFCs 821, 822, and 1123 specify how email should be
>        done in a Perfect World by the Angels, for the Angels, and
>        of the Angels.
>
>            However, this is 1997 -- there are no more Angels
>        left, and this is about the most imperfect world as could
>        possibly exist.
>
>            Now, we are forced to be realistic.
>
>
>
>    When the national and international laws have been sufficiently
>tightened, as well as the Internet mail protocol itself, maybe we'll
>be able to relax restrictions of this sort.  However, I don't see
>that happening any time soon, if ever.
>
>--
>Brad Knowles                                MIME/PGP: [log in to unmask]
>    Senior Unix Administrator              <http://www.his.com/~brad/>
><http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE38CCEF1>