spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV

2005-07-05 07:24:17
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 08:58 -0500, wayne wrote:
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?

Didn't we discuss that only a few days ago? Yes, what I'm doing predates
the written description of both BATV and SES, and is what Meng Wong
originally called 'SES' before SES mutated into something entirely
baroque and went off into the weeds. But it's basically the same as BATV
in principle, albeit with a different syntax.

http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200402/0900.html

So it's not _quite_ 18 months yet, but not far off.

-- 
dwmw2


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