paddy wrote:
scary thought: receiver could CBV MAIL FROMs other than <> ??
Better not. What I meant was that some auto-responder like
"vacation" following 3834 sends to the Return-Path. IIRC it
MAY or SHOULD use MAIL FROM_<>, but not MUST, Therefore the
BATV-system has to expect RCPT TO:<crypto-x+expiration@> even
in MAIL FROM:<vacation@> or similar.
But CBV with a non-empty MAIL FROM sounds like a bad plan if
it meets another CBV with a non-empty MAIL FROM. Bye, Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com