Dave Lugo <dlugo@???> (Di 21 Nov 2006 15:38:45 CET):
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> >
> > But what I understand from SRS is, that (for some limited period of
> > time, mostly at least some days) they should expect bounces for the
> > SRC-generated address.
> >
> > Or did I miss some important point?
> >
>
> Yes, BATV.
> Why would someone accept a bounce if they never send the original
> email?
Ok, if it's done in a real-time manner you're right: As soon as the
delivery to the next hop isn't completed there cannot be a bounce from
the next hop. And my callback starts before their message is delivered
to my systems. But they do not even accept a a bounce after successful
delivery...
Sender next HOP
MAIL FROM:<SR0=....@xyz.de> --->
<---- establishes sender verify
connection
This *could* fail, because the above
transaction is not completed yet.
Sender next HOP
MAIL FROM:<SR0-....
RCPT TO:....
DATA:.... --->
.
<---- OK mailaccepted
NOW(!) at least the <SR0=...) should be verifyable
or should accept bounces.
But: It's quite risky to rely on having some database updated just in
the moment the transaction completes, since receiving the other sides OK
and getting a bounce can be almost the same moment and can be in a race
with updating the database.
And - why should somebody use a sender that is not verifyable during the
transaction? I understand the limited validity (in time) of the used
sender address. But from my POV it should(!) be valid already as soon
as it is used.
Best regards from Dresden
Viele Grüße aus Dresden
Heiko Schlittermann
--
SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support -
Heiko Schlittermann HS12-RIPE -----------------------------------------
gnupg encrypted messages are welcome - key ID: 48D0359B ---------------
gnupg fingerprint: 3061 CFBF 2D88 F034 E8D2 7E92 EE4E AC98 48D0 359B -
