Hello,
My apologies for this being slightly off-topic but I don't know
of a better forum to ask the following question:
Is it a common legal necessity to accept only messages that
provide a possible return path?
My understanding of national law is so and we therefore enforce
smtp callbacks. Now in times where Peter, Paul and Mary run
their own MX server it appears that the number of mx hosts that
disallow bounce messages increases - most of those 'admins' were
grateful after getting a hint and admitted that this behaviour
came up unwanted as a mere side effect of desperate efforts in
fighting SPAM, though. Others strictly deny changing their
setup, using the usual phrases like 'it's only you we have that
issue with' or 'my software allows me to do this, so it must be
right'.
Looking back in time, it somehow reminds me of the sad story of
M$ and host_names - well in fact I do hope that there won't be
as many weird flamewars as there were regarding the underscore
issue. In fact, the RFCs are quite clear about bounce messages.
But how many mailadmins today have ever heard of what is an RFC?
In fact I woud be very interested in some straight facts based
on [your national] law - which I couldn't find neither by gooo-
gling nor by browsing the FAQs.
TIA,
vt
--
V. T. Mueller
Continum AG
Wentzinger Strasse 7a
79106 Freiburg i. Br.
http://www.continum.net
Tel.: +49 761 479409 70
Fax.: +49 761 479409 33
Mail: v.t.mueller@???
