Bryan Rawlins wrote: > It seems that BATV/PRVS is becoming more and more common in our incoming > mail stream. > http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch40.html#SECTverifyPRVS > > Currently it appears that a signed return path is a rarity in UCE, > however as we all know it's probably only a matter of time before that > changes. > > So my question is, and I'm strictly looking for personal opinions here; > Are callout/callback verifications on the envelope sender when that > sender is signed more acceptable than just doing them in general? I > know SCV in general is a hot topic, I don't wish to rehash it's good/bad > points, just wonder it people whom are generally against it would be > more amiable if it was only done one signed return paths.
Heh. The people who are against sender callout verification are generally against it under *ANY* circumstance and wouldn't be willing to even consider entertaining a situation where it might be acceptable. It's an interesting thought, but I personally wouldn't bother considering it unless spammers actually start to pretend their emails are BATV signed. I don't think that will happen. -- Mike Cardwell (https://secure.grepular.com/) (http://perlcv.com/) -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
