spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Fw: SRS vs BATV

2006-02-17 07:08:37
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 04:44:47AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:

As I understand it BATV "encodes" an original MAIL FROM x into
some MAIL FROM crypto-x+expiration.  That's what the receiving
MX and anything behind it see.  If they have to bounce the
mail, or if they send other auto-replies as specified in 3834,

interesting, never saw that before. thanks.

they send RCPT TO crypto-x+expration.  At least for a normal
bounce they'd use MAIL FROM:<>.

Therefore the MXs corresponding to x _must_ accept all legit
bounces RCPT TO crypto-x+expration, and in fact they must also
accept other mails RCPT TO crypto-x+expiration.

scary thought: receiver could CBV MAIL FROMs other than <> ??

assuming that the mail crypto-x+expration didn't already make any
guarantees about not auto-responding.

and can an address that's auto-responding (and thus promising not to
auto-respond to a response) CBV ... ?

Regards,
Paddy
-- 
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall

-------
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

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