I certainly don't want to whitelist malformed BATV tags, refer below.
The draft is not very strict, BUT I agree ASSP should follow the draft convention for PRVS for its own BATV validation purposes, but it need NOT be strict about stripping other mail servers PRVS implementations out for whitelisting purposes. Eg. If I email [email protected] (with auto whitelisting and BATV PRVS enables) then ASSP should whitelist [email protected] and send the email from prvs=1234abcdef=jcalvi@ <mailto:[email protected]%20> mydomain.com as per the draft. If you then try to reply to me with your server that implements PRVS not exactly as per the draft, eg [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20> instead of eg [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20> then my ASSP server should still recognise that it is you replying and that you were whitelisted. Hope this makes sense. I am seeing these tags from very legitimate users at large multinational companies, Eg NORD.COM, CSIRO.AU, SICK.COM.AU etc. John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
