Re: SRS: is there a stable implementation for postfix yet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 18:24 -0800, Tom Lahti wrote:
> > >And in answer to your third question -- of _course_ misdirected
> > > bounces are a problem, and you know my solution.
> >
> > Actually, we don't.  Is it the same as Johann's laughable "solution";
> > the equivalent of running SpamAssassin?
>
> http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
>
> Essentially the same principle as BATV, the original 'SES' before it
> went off into the weeds, or self-signed SRS.
>
> Basically I sign the reverse-path on any genuine outgoing mail so it
> looks like an SRS address. Then I never accept bounces to the 'raw'
> address '[email protected]'. So anyone doing sender verification
> callouts gets to reject faked mail, but _certainly_ I don't get bounces.

As far as I could see from reviewing your webpage, your solution suffers 
from the replay problem (apart from a weak datestamp verification).  Did I 
overlook anything?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEKX/TwL7PKlBZWjsRAouyAKDEt5/ZYJMMRPzM6RvL/XjgHJ3uOgCg/iX1
4N3kjAnpSLWJGHGxT7EXlQQ=
=2oWC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----