To:
Mats Dufberg <dufberg@nic-se.se>
cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Date:
Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:50:00 +0700
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Wed, 07 Feb 2001 12:59:50 +0100." <Pine.BSF.4.30.0102071233360.8123-100000@spider.nic-se.se>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Bogus nic.fr behavior
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:59:50 +0100 (CET)
From: Mats Dufberg <dufberg@nic-se.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0102071233360.8123-100000@spider.nic-se.se>
| It is very to validate an address of the reasons that you give above.
I am guessing that "difficult" got omitted there. It wouldn't be if
mailers supported VRFY as 821 required though. But that's not a dnsop
issue.
| You can take either of two approaches; you can skip testing,
Yes, that's basically what I do at the minute, which is why I asked
whether anyone had a way to handle this.
| or you can test as much as is manageable.
Yes, could do, but the problems I mostly see wouldn't be caught by
the simple tests often, so I'm not sure there is a lot of benefit to
them (I don't think I have ever seen anyone here attempting to use
"localhost" in there - though I have seen "" (.) which seems to be
an idea from somewhere on how to avoid spam, and of course the
consequences of $ORIGIN being appended to a FQDN).
kre