Re: MTS transparency and anonymity
Tony Finch <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rfc822 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> > We've found that SMTP call-back return path verification is quite > > effective, though it has very nasty behaviour for the victims of joe jobs. > > I have somewhat different experience - I've found that SMTP call-back > verification often produces unnecessary failures, as it's not unusual for > the sender's SMTP server to fail to respond promptly even though the > message is legitimate. Oh yes, I didn't say it was easy to use and without interop problems :-) But they can be mitigated with judicious use of exemption lists etc. > [bounce address verification] Though IMHO all of these systems are > "not ready for prime time" and it's way too early to try to avoid > duplicating effort. Indeed. Which is why I'm working on my own flavour of the idea so we get as many data points as possible. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ BISCAY: NORTHEAST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4, THEN SOUTHWEST 4 OR 5 LATER IN NORTH. OCCASIONAL RAIN. MAINLY GOOD.