Re: Sender Address Verification (SAV)

I'm running sendmail.


Brent Spencer
XsiteDesigns

> On Tue, February 26, 2008 4:38 pm, Brent Spencer wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> Seems that using a dated address at all isn't recommended as you don't
>> know whether the remote SMTP server will be using SAV or not.  That
>> would
>> mean that the proper handling of bounces as shown below would no longer
>> work.
>>
>> # Catch-all rule for addresses that are not yet on the whitelist.
>> # Use a dated envelope (to catch bounces), a dated Reply-To for safe
>> # measure, and also append the recipient's address to the whitelist.
>> #to-file ~/.tmda/whitelist bare
>> to * tag envelope dated=10d reply-to dated from bare=append
>
> I've never actually had problems with somebody denying my dated addresses
> due to SAV, that I know of.
>
> That said, I think the way postfix (which I use) handles address
> validation, extensions are ignored, so my server does actually allow a
> remote SMTP server using SAV to work correctly...
>
> Thinking about it, the same should be true of any SMTP server where the
> server itself supports address extensions. What SMTP server are you
> running?
>
> (This email has been scanned for viruses by ClamAV)
>
>

(This email has been scanned for viruses by ClamAV)