From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:39:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:38:53 -0500 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237]:28400 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:38:37 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: <20020129191424.U5808@mea-ext.zmailer.org> In-Reply-To: <20020129191424.U5808@mea-ext.zmailer.org> <3C56CFBD.6060100@antefacto.com> To: Matti Aarnio Cc: Padraig Brady , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: that virus thing.... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:38:29 +0000 Message-ID: <9247.1012379909@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org matti.aarnio@zmailer.org said: > No. It means the real message originator, invisible because that > system apparently does not retain Received: headers, sent out: > From: > and VGER was the first machine receiving it, and following the letter > of RFC 822 about fully-qualified addresses in visible headers, and > qualified a non-qualified one... It's too early in the morning for reading RFCs. Does RFC2822 say you should add your own domain to unqualified addresses in non-local mail, or just say that unqualified addresses aren't legal? If the latter, rejecting the offending mail would seem more appropriate than adding '@vger.kernel.org' to it. Might also be useful to stop any mail with null reverse-path from getting to the list - or do we already do that and the ones that slipped through couldn't even get that right? -- dwmw2