Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> 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.
That's unrealistic. the user-part in MAIL FROM has a length limitation
which goes against secure signatures. the other question is why would
this be needed (I mean, is it really worth the trouble?)...
isn't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (where "blahblah" is whatever you want)
enough? (replace '+' with whatever "extension" character you use)
> 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
