Re: Bounce/System Notification Address Verification

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 
> disastrous
> callback loop. However this will only occur if your system has the same
> bug.
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" ;)

pgpfv3dNRLEZS.pgp
Description: PGP signature