----- Original Message -----
From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer(_at_)brasslantern(_dot_)com>
To: "ASRG" <asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID
Verification)
And I assert that even that is a new requirement. Valid from what point
of
view?
Suppose the (not uncommon case) of a sending MTA that is not the same host
as the MX for the sender's domain. Call these MTA1 and MX1. A message is
transmitted via MTA1 to the recipient's MX, which I'll call MX2. If the
sender mailbox is valid at MTA1 -- that is, MTA1 can successfully deliver
a DSN to that mailbox in the event of a 5xx response from MX2 -- where is
the requirement that the mailbox also be valid when presented as a RCPT
TO:
at MX1?
C: connect to MX2
S: 250 welcome
C: HELO MTA1
S: 250 HELLO there! (ignore any validation here for the moment)
C: MAIL FROM: MTA1(_at_)MX1
--- BEGIN WCSAP VALIDATION ---
C: connect to MX1
S: 250 welcome
C: HELO MX2
S: 250 Hello!
C: RCPT TO: MTA1(_at_)MX1
S: 552 - Sorry doesn't exist
C: QUIT
S: 250
--- END WCSAP VALIDATION return 4xx or 5xx depending on policy ---
S: 552, Local user not found!
C: QUIT
I don't see the problem.
Also, keep in mind that a return path is persistent cross all routes.
---
Hector Santos, CTO
WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server"
support: http://www.winserver.com
sales: http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg