Re: Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV

In 
<1120568938(_dot_)19467(_dot_)115(_dot_)camel(_at_)hades(_dot_)cambridge(_dot_)redhat(_dot_)com>
 David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> writes:

Mostly it has an empty reverse-path as mandated by RFC2821 and common
sense. Having implemented BATV for about 18 months now, I have [...]


Interesting claim, since BATV hasn't been around for 18 months.  Or,
do you include your use of SES?


-wayne

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: SPF Stats, (continued) Re: SPF Stats, David Woodhouse Re: SPF Stats, Greg Connor Re: SPF Stats, wayne RE: SPF Stats, Scott Kitterman RE: SPF Stats, David Woodhouse SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats), Julian Mehnle Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats), Tony Finch Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, Frank Ellermann Re: Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, David Woodhouse Re: Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, Stuart D. Gathman Re: Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, wayne <= Re: Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, David Woodhouse Re: Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, wayne Re: Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, David Woodhouse Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats), David Woodhouse Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats), Stuart D. Gathman Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats), David Woodhouse Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats), Stuart D. Gathman Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats), David Woodhouse Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, wayne Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, David Woodhouse

Previous by Date:	Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats), Stuart D. Gathman
Next by Date:	Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats), David Woodhouse
Previous by Thread:	Re: Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, Stuart D. Gathman
Next by Thread:	Re: Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV, David Woodhouse
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]