On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Gray, Richard wrote:
>
> I was wondering, how does something like BATV affect the end users of
> mail Services. Could I implement this at a server level without my users
> noticing That their outbound envelopes were being rewritten?
Probably not, unless your users' behaviour is already constrained in the
right kind of way (as Tom hinted). Even then there are some known interop
problems, but they haven't yet been properly characterized. For more about
this see:
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~fanf2/hermes/doc/talks/2005-02-ukuug/
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~fanf2/hermes/doc/antiforgery/cam.txt
> Is it even a good idea to do this?
I think so :-)
> BATV seems like the simplest, and least Anti-social way of guaranteeing
> that a message is a legitimate bounce, but Surely if this was the case
> it would already have much wider acceptance? What Are the the reasons
> not to use it?
Lack of implementations.
Tony.
--
<fanf@???> <dot@???>
http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\
\N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}
