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. > > -- > Bryan Rawlins > OnlyMyEmail, Inc. >
As you asked for 'opinion'... We do not make sender-verification callouts of any kind. We might do if we had a 'pool' of servers under our own control and had no better way to sync user DB's - but we DO have a better way.. We do 'permit' others to query us for generalized sender-verification. so long as the query itself comes from a server that passes the same strict tests as any other incoming connection. And therein lies a tale. Heiko S. (who has just posted his rules) cannot send to me nor I to him. - his server makes a SV callout to mine if/as/when I send. - my server rejects the connection based on dodgy characteristics of HIS server. As it would do if he tried to send a message to me. Catch 22 ... Bill Hacker -- ## 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/
