> > > They are doing the Right Thing and not being an open relay. > Basically the server says *one* of the persons involved has to be
In both cases one is always a local user. But only in one case is authentication required. > known to it. If the email is for a local user it knows that person. > If it isn't, you have to authenticate as someone it knows. Otherwise > Joe Spammer can come and ask the server to please deliver these 10k > messages to random people. Right, but my question is why do I need to authenticate local to remote and not remote to local not why do I have to authenticate at all. I'm well aware of the spam relay fun! :) I could spam all the local users as [EMAIL PROTECTED] all day long without any knowledge of there settings. So I guess, why not authenticate both ways? Just a pondering, no big deal since they'd have to get a scirpt on the server and that'd make them trackable pretty quick. > Daniel T. Staal -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
