[Top] [All Lists]

Re: BATV breaks rfc2821bis?

2008-05-20 08:21:53

Paul Smith wrote:
mouss wrote:
That's fine, as it doesn't seem that the remote server is supposed to gain any benefit. It's the spoofed domain's MTAs which can gain the benefit.
but then why standardize the format? anybody can use "internal aliases" of any form (aka disposable addresses).
That's my view as well. A standard return path syntax (eg 'batv=<key>=<orig-local-part>@<domain>') is a good idea as it allows the original local part to be extracted if necessary, but beyond that, there's no point to a standard format for private keys.

"Extracting the local part" is obviously an interpretation of the local-part, which would break section 2.3.11 of 2821bis, as SM noticed. I don't recall anything in the standard that deprecates equal signs in the local-part.

Section additionally states that "The reverse-path consists of the sender mailbox", not a variation thereof. That wording apparently bans using time-varying tags, unless we reinterpret BATV as a redistribution service for ephemeral ad-hoc lists, in the sense of section 3.9.2 (but beware poor subscription policies.) A rather cumbersome way to standardize things.