Speaking of personal attacks against me, how old are you?
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Reindl Harald <'h.rei...@thelounge.net'> wrote: Am 09.02.2017 um 09:28 schrieb Ruga: >> A large class of wanted email comes with the "undisclosed recipients" >> header. A large class of wanted email comes from domains that lack SPF. > > Our security policy demands rejection of both types. They do not hit SA. > They are denied as soon as their strings are received. The IP of > repeated offenders is then dropped by firewall. your childish posts are funny but slowly becoming annoying you live in your own small world where you can do what you want if the people which are owning the mailbox suck it - but don't pretend that this works in the real world out there if you want to be taken serious > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Joe Quinn > <'headprogrammingc...@gmail.com'> wrote: >> On 2/8/2017 1:36 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: >>> Having been through the process of authoring 2 RFC’s, perhaps I can shed >>> some light on the process for you. >>> >>> All proposed standards started life as draft RFC’s (this was before the >>> days of IDEA’s but after the days of IEN’s). >>> >>> If it were validated by the working group and passed up to the IAB and they >>> concurred (they usually deferred to the WG except on editorial matters), >>> then the proposed draft was issued officially as an RFC and given a number. >>> >>> Later, after it accepted wide enough adoption in the Internet community, an >>> existing RFC might be promoted to "standard" from "experimental", etc. >>> >>> Occasionally, if a WG (working group) did enough reference implementations >>> and proved them at one or more interoperability meetings (the so-called >>> "bake-offs"), then the WG could petition for immediate labeling as a >>> "standard" when the RFC was approved by the IAB. >>> >>> It’s even possible for a standard (like RFC-1035) to have both "standard" >>> parts (like A RR’s) and "experimental" parts (like MB RR’s). >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Ruga <r...@protonmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Read the headers of RFCs; some o them are explicitly labeled as standard. >>>> Most of them are request for comments. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <'kmcgr...@pccc.com'> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 2/8/2017 8:52 AM, Ruga wrote: >>>>>> Not all RFCs are standards. >>>>>> Educate yourself. >>>>> The personal attacks aren't necessary. These RFCs are the basis for >>>>> effectively 100% of the email on the planet for decades. If that's not >>>>> a standard, what is? >> >> This bears some emphasis, actually. Going from experimental to >> standard comes /after/ the implementations are used in practice and >> proven to be useful. Beyond that, SA is not a standards checker or an >> RFC checker or an IEEE checker. All it does is classify email as >> wanted or not wanted. A large class of wanted email comes with the >> "undisclosed recipients" header. A large class of wanted email comes >> from domains that lack SPF. A smaller class of wanted email comes from >> the actual manufacturer of Viagra. Some mail servers disregard some >> standards entirely. You just have to deal with it. >> >> As Dianne points out, the "undisclosed recipients" to header is valid >> under RFC822, which has been itself expanded on in multiple subsequent >> RFCs. As multiple other people here have mentioned, the "undisclosed >> recipients" to header is used in wanted email. I am right now two >> clicks away from adding it to this email with my mail client. It is an >> implementation detail of BCC, and unambiguously is not spam indicator >> on its own.
