Re: CBV

Mark Shewmaker <[email protected]> Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:06:41 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.mail.spam.srs.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 06:59, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 05:26, Tony Finch wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Could the SES address contain a truncated body checksum?
> > >
> > > No, that makes it impossible for CBV to work.
> >
> > Why?
> 
> How can the SMTP server validate the address if it doesn't have all the
> information it needs? If the address includes a body checksum it can't be
> validated until after the message body is seen, and the body is never
> transmitted during CBV.

Ahh.

I was suggesting that the receiving MTA validate the checksum, not the
sending machine--the sending machine would just validate that the MAIL
FROM string as a whole checks out, (ie, that it's self-consistent and
hasn't yet expired), just as is done with SES today.

-- 
Mark Shewmaker
[email protected]