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.
Heh. The people who are against sender callout verification are
generally against it under *ANY* circumstance and wouldn't be willing to
even consider entertaining a situation where it might be acceptable.
It's an interesting thought, but I personally wouldn't bother
considering it unless spammers actually start to pretend their emails
are BATV signed. I don't think that will happen.
--
Mike Cardwell
(
https://secure.grepular.com/) (
http://perlcv.com/)
