ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: private key BATV is useful

2008-05-19 15:42:15

but then, why not a scheme such as
  user+tagstuff(_at_)domain
(replace '+' with any char(s) you prefer). this would make it almost trivial to implement in MTAs that support address extensions.

Because it would collide with the way that address extensions are used now.

BATV is handled in the MTA at SMTP time, but address extensions are handled at delivery time or later. If the BATV stuff were put in an extension, you couldn't tell it from VERP and other delivery time extension usages.

Also, whatever the scheme is, there is another class of applications to think of. these are applications that use the sender address as an element to determine the "reputation" of a transaction (spamassassin AWL for instance). such apps should be made aware of the various BATV styles.

See subsequent message.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

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