On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
If that's the idea CBV will perfectly work with BATV. The
case where BATV would reject bounces includes direct RCPT TO x
MAIL FROM <> instead of RCPT TO crypto-x+epiration.
But CBV doesn't verify x, it verifies crypto-x+expiration.
So where's the problem ?
Believe it not, many MTAs do CBV with a MAIL FROM of other than <>. For
that matter, they also reply to DSNs, send DSNs with MAIL FROM other than
<>, and send notices to alleged senders that some virus somewhere in
the world tried to propagate itself using your email.
If you don't care (I don't) about receiving mail from such brain dead MTAs,
then by all means just reject unsigned bounces immediately at RCPT TO.
Unfortunately, my clients do want to receive mail from such MTAs. Sigh.
This discussion has been helpful, however. I think I will make rejecting
unsigned bounces immediately at RCPT TO an option for people like me -
with a suitably lengthy message for the rejection to explain why.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com