On Jun 13, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:06:57 +0100, Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > abuse.org> > wrote: > > >> Which TLDs should be ignored? Imposing SMTP domain requirements will >> likely reveal a need to make many exceptions. Do you agree there >> should be a means for making exceptions? Whether making address >> assignments exclusively within MS Exchange is considered stupid (and >> you'll find agreement there), imposing a requirement that email- >> addresses must be valid (in some manner) changes SMTP >> interoperability. As it is now, recipients will normally see these >> messages (which may not expect a response), and might even be >> considered an alternative to the use of "do-not-reply@" local-parts. > > You may ignore any TLD not recognized by ICANN (for that purpose, all > national TLDs are deemed so recognized).
The domains being ignored can _not_ be based upon it not having a valid TLD. This would permit bad actors a means to employ look-alike spoofing. Their spoofs might use ACE-labels for example, or things like ".C0M". -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
