Re: ezmlm and BATV

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 03:48:35PM -0700, John Keith wrote:
> > Also, from reading the draft above, it indicates that the encoded
> > address should be [email protected].  Is that what
> > you are seeing or the reverse that you posted above?
> 
> We are seeing both encoding methods in practice, so it's a bit
> confusing.

This makes it effectively impossible to support this without jumping
through some rather large hoops.  I could see supporting one or the
other, but if both forms are indistinguishable, which way are we
supposed to handle it?

> > If ezmlm-idx always strips off the leading prvs=CODE= part, is that
> > sufficient to communicate with systems utilizing BATV?  That would
> > mean that the plain address is stored in the database, and all email
> > (except for bounces created automatically by qmail) would be sent to
> > the plain address.
> 
> Yes, from what I understand about BATV, that is the desired outcome.
> Bounces always go to the encoded address; regular deliveries always go
> to the plain address.

That wouldn't be too hard to do, especially with the address form in the
latest draft.  Simply add a common function to advance the sender
address pointer past the prvs=CODE= and apply it everywhere appropriate.
I have no good ideas how to handle it if different indistinguishable
forms are in use.

>   I think this type of thing could be more common in the future.

I don't doubt it, and at least with this I wouldn't have a big problem
supporting it (with the reservation above of course).  I'm all for
making ezmlm-idx more useable.

-- 
Bruce Guenter <[email protected]>                http://untroubled.org/
	I do custom software development.  Email me for details.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHAtDP6W+y3GmZgOgRAkjCAJ9/GGVqXkv7pECPQdw1BitOxoJymACfdBTx
RfbWWcUwD070SRS/6+7HTt4=
=41Jh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----