In message <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] writes: > > MAIL From:<@host1:user@host2> > > Perhaps a more reasonable policy would be to reject source-routed mail > only if a comparison of host1 and host2 indicates a probable spamming > attempt through a relay (for instance, if they do not match to at > least a second level domain.name). That would be, to me, a policy > based rejection, not a rejection based merely on use of valid syntax. And I think that even this can be unreasonable. I cite my two cases again: 1) host1 is the corporate firewall, that just happens to also protect my machine at home. Specifically: MAIL From:<@elgreco.border.com:[log in to unmask]> 2) host1 is an ISP's mail relay host, provided as a service to its less technically savvy customers: MAIL From:<@mail.uunet.ca:[log in to unmask]> (Yes, both of these are real examples :-). Again, to reiterate: - I have no objection to filtering known spam sources. (I use AOLs PreferredMail list of hosts to filter my own incoming e-mail, thanks to some perl scripts by YAPH). - I have no objection to refusing to act as a mail relayer for hosts outside your administrative purview (i.e. denying RCPT To:<@host1:user@host2). - I merely object to rejecting mail based on a source route appearing in the MAIL From: command. -- Harald Koch <[log in to unmask]>