Re: [exim] support for domainkeys

On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 14:53 -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> It is not even safe to not accept bounces from messages that one could
> not have generated if _everyone_ does not also very strictly enforce
> something like SPF or PRA -- anyone can legitimately use another address
> as their envelope return address!

FSVO 'legitimately'. Since I own the domain 'infradead.org' and I never
ever send mail from the address 'dwmw2@???' I consider it
perfectly reasonable to declare that you may _not_ legitimately use
'dwmw2@???' in the envelope return address of mail you send.

Since you will never see 'dwmw2@???' in the envelope return
address of mail which any of your servers might be asked to forward,
that's not so unreasonable, surely?

> All these stupid schemes rely on everyone else implementing the solution
> and meanwhile none of these stupid schemes are necessary if we could
> only get everyone else to at least stop generating unnecessary bounces
> in the first place. You're all solving the wrong problem in ways that
> can never work anyway.

I suspect you're misunderstanding BATV. It most certainly doesn't need
anyone else to implement it, or even to adapt to the fact that I have
implemented it myself. The only person who needs to adapt is myself (and
those users who have opted in to the scheme) -- by making sure I use
SMTP AUTH and don't attempt to send MAIL FROM<dwmw2@???> from
elsewhere.

--
dwmw2