Xref: utzoo comp.mail.headers:658 comp.mail.misc:5022
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Unreplyable addresses not considered illegal enough?
Message-ID: <60419802@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 11 Mar 91 06:37:23 GMT
References: <BOB.91Mar10163331@volitans.MorningStar.Com>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Followup-To: comp.mail.headers
Lines: 13

In article <BOB.91Mar10163331@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
>I think that most mail users and administrators would agree that
>unreplyable From: or Reply-To: lines are Wrong.  Why is there no
>stronger and more specific prohibition?

It seems impracticable to burden every forwarding agent with the
responsibility of verifying origination headers.  The locus of
prohibition should be the sender's site, where verification is
inexpensive and sanctions are immediate and least-disruptive.

Let us see a rundown of the most common kinds of unreplyable origination
header, along with where they come from and what causes them.  Then the
right thing to do will suggest itself.