spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re[2]: Email Forwarder's Protocol ( EFP )

2005-02-28 10:05:41
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Chris Drake wrote:

SDG> So tell me again why we need those "Bounces"?  As far as I can see, the
SDG> problem is sending a "Bounce" instead of a DSN.

Eh what?  A bounce *is* a DSN - specifically, a "failure DSN", as

Yes, I know that.  David has redefined "Bounce" to mean something else.
Rather than argue about terminology, I've just been putting "Bounce"
in quotes.  As far as I can tell, the problem that David is trying
to address is clueless/evil virus/spam filters that send replies (what
David calls a "Bounce") instead of DSNs saying "SuperDooper Scanner for Windoze
found a virus in your email" when, or course, it is not your email but
a forgery.  I'm campaigning to raise an army and force them to send
DSNs like they're supposed to.  

David advocates creating a new DSN like protocol called a "Bounce" which is
flagged by a MAIL FROM of <BOUNCE> instead of <>, and which uses a new header
(2821 or 2822 - can't tell which yet, and it doesn't matter much) containing a
"bounce-path" which is like the return-path but required to be authenticated.
He plans to convince every mail admin to change their MTAs to implement the new
extensions.  The justification seems to be that SPF doesn't do a good enough
job of authenticating return-path, so creating a new field that is
authenticated from the get go is the way to go.  (Never mind that the problem
is caused in the first place by not following existing standards.)

I predict that neither of us will get very far.

-- 
              Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.