John Hasler wrote: > Julian Mehnle writes: > > No, but this again is one of these broken "e-mail vs. real world" > > analogies. You can't receive mail through such a letter box, but a > > sender address is inherently meant to be a valid address through which > > you can be contacted (among other criteria). > > I can no more be contacted via the machine in that library than I can via > the letterbox. I go in there, spend five minutes sending an email and > leave, expecting any replies or bounces to go to my real address. If my > message is bounced to that box or a reply sent there it will vanish > without a trace.
Then it's up to the library to decide whether to offer this feature (envelope-from forgery, or call it envelope-from pretendery) or protect its domain from unauthorized use in envelope-froms. Of course the latter option implies restrictions for users like you, but the library is not at all required to implement these restrictions for its domain. I still don't understant why so many people object against the cited proposals... The implementation on the sending side (i.e. the DNS configuration) is entirely optional.
