[Top] [All Lists]

Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call

2008-05-20 01:21:09

Dave Crocker wrote:
ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
And this is what I was getting at when I said that I'm concerned that the
labelling is insufficiently unique in format. Mind you, I'm not proposing a change here, merely expressing concern.

Really. If someone wants the current syntax changed, please do propose it, explaining why it is needed.

As an example, one might propose replacing "prvs" with "batv1", e.g. batv1=1234abcdef=user(_at_)example(_dot_)com(_dot_) Not that I like it very much, as people will tend to read it as "BAT version 1". However, it can be identified with a reasonably tight regular expression. Further mechanisms would be numbered by their position in that IANA registry.

A C written program can easily scan the tag even without resorting to regular expressions. Why would it want to do that? Two reasons:

1) Given that today is 019, the tag exemplified above exhibits an expired day 234, thus a remote server can reject the message if it adopts the policy of not accepting unbounceable messages, even if it cannot verify the signature. (Possibly valid for batv1 only.)

2) A receiving MTA can extract user(_at_)example(_dot_)com if it needs to check it against a list of subscribed users at the MAIL FROM level. (Also valid for future BATV mechanisms.)

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