Kirill Miazine said:
> * Kevin Reed [2003-12-21 13:40]:
[snip]
>> The filter doesn't know who really sent the message so you can't know
>> really who to send the bounce to... so you could easily end up bouncing
>> this message to people who never sent you a message in the first place.
>> Evil...
>
> Who would send a message to km-dated-1072040342@???? ...
The same people who would be getting the bounce that said the address was
expired or not yet valid???
> Maybe I will let users on my server
> to use dated addresses, but by using YYYY, YYYYMM, YYYYMMMDD instead of
> seconds since 1970-01-01.
If used for spam prevention, it is a problem for the very reason why I
mentioned in the first place. You don't know who the sender is.
Thats why an alternative that produces a Deny at SMTP time rather than a
bounce after the message is received is perferred...
This is unless I am viewing how you are planning on using this type of
"feature".
If it is used for internal mail only, I don't see a problem with it.
Personally, I think it is a cool idea if done right. There are some other
issues such as timezones, perhaps generating an address that does not make
it so easy to guess what the real one is... provide a way for users to
request a temp unique unblocked mail address etc...
--
Kevin W. Reed - TNET Services, Inc.
Unoffical Exim MTA Info Forums -
http://exim.got-there.com/forums
