spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SRS requirements

2004-01-14 19:59:12

On Jan 14, 2004, at 10:34 AM, Meng Weng Wong wrote:

Plan E: shove the original sender into the headers

    Pobox will also prepend Old-Return-Path to the headers, showing the
    original sender address.

    We could shove the full-encapsulated but "overweight" address into
    the headers.

X-SRS: <bounce+foo#aol(_dot_)com-J0*dG7h8yzAwB=bar#pobox(_dot_)com(_at_)bounce(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>

    Then the rewritten sender address would only need to be
    J0*dG7h8yzAwB(_at_)bounce(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com(_dot_)  We would accept the 
message,
    parse out the X-SRS header, and unwrap based on that.

    Of course, this wouldn't work if the reporting MTA didn't include
    that header in the message.  The only thing you can guarantee is
    the return-path.

A non trivial number of systems will not give you the headers back.

For 1 (the end user being able to parse the original address out) we could also have each SRS host add a "Old-Return-Path" header, but extend it so it'll give more information ("when we expanded the foo(_at_)domain recipient address, the sender was bar(_at_)otherdomain").


 - ask

--
http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/

-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡


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