mouss writes:
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)
That was my first thought as well. Maybe if I waste half a day trying to decipher that document, I'll see some brilliance in that proposal, but, so far, I just don't get it.
pgpijZZYMrqW9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
