Re: one uninformed comment about 2.99.49p6 (acceptdns +)

[Ambrose Li <news-misc@mingpaoxpress.com>]

In article <ML-3.3.871319105.2767.crosser@ariel>,
Eugene Crosser  <crosser@online.ru> wrote:
>I tend to think that these deliberately invalid addresses are plain
>contradiction to RFC822 4.4.1 and therefore *may* be rejected by an MTA.
>In other words, `anti-spam' addresses are NOT legitimate.

That was how I felt before I see so many people do that; IMHO it is not
only RFC822-non-compliant, it is outright forgery.



--
Ambrose C. Li <acli@mingpaoxpress.com> Programmer-analyst (sysadmin)
Toronto EDP, Ming Pao Daily News +1(416)321-0088 1355 Huntingwood Dr
Scarborough ON Canada  M1S 3J1 [<- work ]
                                 [ home ->] <acli@acli.interlog.com>