[Top] [All Lists]

Re: BATV breaks rfc2821bis?

2008-05-20 17:05:42

John Levine wrote:
How far back do you want to go?  People have been using subaddresses
like user+blah(_at_)domain since 1991.  Mailing lists have been using VERP
schemes to encode per-message and per-recipient information into the
bounce address at least since 1998.

Let's limit it to "percent-hack" in RFC 1123, anything older is
really too old. ;-)  I can't tell if VERP qualifies as example,
that is for mailing lists, folks sending out of office vacation
mails to mailing lists are a hopeless case (= no argument pro or
con BATV).

The advice in 3834 to send vacation responses to the bounce 
address was already dubious in 2004

Strongly disagree, in fact I'm waiting for a compelling reason
to propose its advancement to DS.  Better than the normative
references in RFC 5230 and sieve-notify-mailto.

Yes, I know that a sensible vacation program that followed
all the advice in 3834 wouldn't respond to list mail at all,
but as we all know, life is not that tidy.

If they ignore RFC 3834 they get what they asked for, I have
"spamcopped" dozens of RFC 3834 violations.  Not counting, but
I always add the 3834 reference manually in these spam reports,
after all it is a relatively new RFC (in relation to say 1123).

RFCs 3834 + 5230 are no showstopppers for BATV, but it needs
more than what you have in the I-D (chapter 5).