At 00:57 20-05-2008, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>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.)
Quoting Section 2.3.10 of RFC 2821:
"Consequently, and due to a long history of problems when intermediate
hosts have attempted to optimize transport by modifying them, the
local-part MUST be interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host
specified in the domain part of the address."
Yep, and this proposal is effectively updating this with the ability for remote
clients to use certain syntax clues to interpret local parts for comparison
purposes. This is why this is a bigger deal than it initially appears and why
we need to get this right.
Ned