[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bounce/System Notification Address Verification

2005-06-28 09:41:44
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:55:27 BST, Tony Finch said:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:

Please note that using the near-universally reviled Verizon method as
anything other than an example of how *not* to do it:

19:36:18 C: MAIL FROM:<antispam579542(_at_)west(_dot_)verizon(_dot_)net>

Now explain to me why I shouldn't do a CBV on this?

And if you do, what do you expect to happen? If Verizon calls back in
response to your callback (i.e. they're doing CBV for email to
antispam579542(_at_)west(_dot_)verizon(_dot_)net) then they are asking for a 
callback loop. However this will only occur if your system has the same

The first rule of any protocol is that it has to interoperate with itself.
The fact that this design *is* prone to disastrous loops when it encounters
other CBV systems with similar design flaws shows that the concept is flawed.

And I *did* start off with "near-universally reviled" ;)

Attachment: pgpfv3dNRLEZS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>