Sam Varshavchik wrote: > > I think that, in general, this is a good idea, but it should not be > necessary to present this in such a convoluted manner. Furthermore I do > not see even a need to have any standard for this. A given mail server > can start generating time-expired bounce addresses that are derived in > any manner. Nobody else needs to care about it. The mail server would > then refuse to accept any bounces to non-conforming bounce addresses, > and that's the end of it.
Nowadays, it seems straightforward to devise a DKIM-style signing for BATV, i.e. adding another mechanism besides prvs, which can be verified by the receiving MTA. Dunno if that's the reason why that draft suddenly resurrects. Neither I know why the IETF would need to quickly standardize BATV as-is before adding new features to it; perhaps it's a requirement related to project management, fund rising, or similar stuff. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
