On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> So, if the bounce they get has text/rfc822-headers only, they [...]
This is getting OT, but you can't even count on getting
text/rfc822-headers in a bounce. I use Exim, a very popular MTA with the
latest stable release just 8 months old, and it doesn
On 7/2/2013 10:11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Michael Deutschmann <
> mich...@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> Well, not really. MAIL FROM: is only visible after delivery, so to
>>> avoid dangling signatures on
On Tue 02/Jul/2013 17:37:20 +0200 Michael Deutschmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> (subject adjusted)
>>
>> A sender using SRS would need to maintain a database of valid addresses.
>> [...] That's where EDSP can save the day.
>
> That's off in the weeds. EDSP would not
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> (subject adjusted)
>
> A sender using SRS would need to maintain a database of valid addresses.
> [...] That's where EDSP can save the day.
That's off in the weeds. EDSP would not take any notice of i=, and is
not there to enhance SRS -- rather it's
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Michael Deutschmann <
mich...@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > Well, not really. MAIL FROM: is only visible after delivery, so to
> > avoid dangling signatures one should store its value in some other
> > header field o
(subject adjusted)
A sender using SRS would need to maintain a database of valid addresses.
However, that task can become unduly complicated if the database has to
be kept in sync across several distant hosts. A digital signature can
substantially complement the security of the necessarily-too-sh
