In
<1120573457(_dot_)19467(_dot_)157(_dot_)camel(_at_)hades(_dot_)cambridge(_dot_)redhat(_dot_)com>
David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> writes:
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.
Ok. BATV has also evolved in the last year. The original proposal by
Dave Crocker at the MARID interim meeting involved using very long
local parts with many special characters. Dave's face went completely
blank when I asked him how his idea differed from SES and/or ABBS, why
he was re-inventing the wheel, and what he was going to do about the
problems that SES/SRS had run into.
From what I know of SES, as mentioned in the thread from a few days
ago, the extentions are optional. If you don't like the extentions,
don't use them.
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.
Sure, but you haven't been doing BATV. In particular, if you haven't
been using BATV, you can't be sure if the special characters and
format that they use works.
I would certainly like to see more effort being put into things like
SES or BATV or ABBS. I like the idea, especially when combined with
SPF to use lighter weight callbacks than using SMTP and only doing
the callbacks when the email is forwarded (or forged).
-wayne