On Sat, 24 May 1997, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:
> In message <Pine.SOL.3.96.970523162540.26553M-100000@???>,
> Philip Hazel writes:
>
> > Hmm. Most people want precisely the opposite! The options
> > sender_verify_except_{hosts,nets} give you that. Certainly I am not
> > interested in receiving messages that have invalid sender addresses.
>
> Let's not forget one very important use of invalid sender addresses
> though, namely for preserving anonymity. Invalid sender addresses are
> not in themselves bad, and in some circumstances can be guarantors of
> freedom and necessary to keep oppression at bay. Not all areas of the
> world are as friendly as the west, and some would say that things are
> less benign than they at first appear even here. What's important in
> an MTA is to be able to allow invalid addresses through if the admin
> wishes to do so, while at the same time preventing any such from making
> spam if (and ONLY if) the administrator runs a global anti-spam policy..
>
> Hopefully this list is about perfecting the very nice general mechanism
> of Exim, not about implementing any specific policy which individual
> developers and administrators may have.
YES!
Exim configurability is one of it's finest points, and sacrificing it for
implementing global policies is self defeating.
I agree completely Rich!
--- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when
one doesn't know what one can't do!
