On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, George Schlossnagle wrote:
While SRS doesn't break DK or IIM, it does break BATV.
If it does then SRS is broken. From the sender's point of view, any bounce
must come back to the return address that the sender specified (i.e. with
BATV signature intact). There isn't currently a specification for how
recipients can do anything useful with a BATV return path (they can
benefit from SMTP callback verification but that is a side benefit);
however if it has been SRS-rewritten the recipient won't see the BATV
address and will target any return path verification at the rewriting site
rather than the originator. This means that SRS limits the usefulness of a
verification system based on the return-path, but it doesn't actually
break it.
Another difficulty with the combination of BATV and SRS is that the space
limit in the local part of the return path is more likely to be breached,
leading to awkward interoperability problems.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
MALIN HEBRIDES: NORTHEAST 4 OR 5 INCREASING 6. RAIN LATER. GOOD BECOMING
MODERATE.