On 17 February 2018 at 02:19, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> [...]
> And since the direction most MTA's go is to reduce any form of 'bounce' or
> backscatter, the idea of using the VERP to detect 'bounces' is probably not
> as important as it once was, unless the emails are forwarded or client side
>
My 2cents: some ISPs require a manual registration based on the MAIL FROM email
address (not just the domain name), hence VERP can't be used for them.
--
Benjamin Billon
-Original Message-
From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Bagnara
Sent: Saturday, 17 Feb
In article
you write:
>My 2cents: some ISPs require a manual registration based on the MAIL FROM
>email address (not just the domain name),
>hence VERP can't be used for them.
Sounds like an excellent reason to get a less clueless ISP.
Long before VERP, we had wildcard names like joe+whate...
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:58 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <32db9480-1666-d007-4d83-976d891e2...@linuxmagic.com> you write:
>>> It's not really wise to use non-obfuscated return paths when using
>>> VERP. If it's easily decodable, a goofball could spin up fake ones to
>>> try to get 'em logg
Sure, there's pros and cons.
VERP Pros
1. Makes processing async (delayed) bounces much easier
2. Makes processing the infinitely variable content of NDNs less of a
concern overall.
VERP Cons
1. Confuses admins who are trying to whitelist in bound mail based on
MFROM address.
2. Confuses people w
On 17 February 2018 at 14:23, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
> My 2cents: some ISPs require a manual registration based on the MAIL FROM
> email address (not just the domain name), hence VERP can't be used for them.
Hi Benjamin,
Interesting, can you elaborate? real ISP example?
What does it happen if y
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 11:19 AM, John Levine wrote:
> In article
>
> you write:
>>My 2cents: some ISPs require a manual registration based on the MAIL FROM
>>email address (not just the domain name),
>>hence VERP can't be used for them.
>
> Sounds like an excellent reason to get a less cluele
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> On 17 February 2018 at 14:23, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
>> My 2cents: some ISPs require a manual registration based on the MAIL FROM
>> email address (not just the domain name), hence VERP can't be used for them.
>
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> Intere
On 17 February 2018 at 17:21, Al Iverson wrote:
> []
> I am saying that I think it's unwise to put what amounts to
> subscriber-level PII or basically clear identifiers in the Return
> Path/MFROM, if mail back to that address is interpreted as an
> indication that an action should be taken (li
In article
you write:
>I am saying that I think it's unwise to put what amounts to
>subscriber-level PII or basically clear identifiers in the Return
>Path/MFROM, if mail back to that address is interpreted as an
>indication that an action should be taken (like logging a bounce and
>potentially s
In article
you write:
>The use of IDs instead of the real original email in the return-path
>may also be because of length limits.
>Max length of an email address is 254 chars. If you have to insert it
>"almost clear" in a return path and change the domain then there are
>chance your return-path
In article
you write:
>>>My 2cents: some ISPs require a manual registration based on the MAIL FROM
>>>email address (not just the domain name),
>>>hence VERP can't be used for them.
>>
>> Sounds like an excellent reason to get a less clueless ISP.
>>
>> Long before VERP, we had wildcard names li
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:43 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you
> write:
>>I am saying that I think it's unwise to put what amounts to
>>subscriber-level PII or basically clear identifiers in the Return
>>Path/MFROM, if mail back to that address is interpreted as an
>>indication that an
On 17 February 2018 at 18:46, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you
> write:
>>The use of IDs instead of the real original email in the return-path
>>may also be because of length limits.
>>Max length of an email address is 254 chars. If you have to insert it
>>"almost clear" in a return path a
In article
you write:
>Missing the point there. It has nothing to do with knowing the To:
>address for a given recipient. If the VERP string fields are just
>simple numeric identifiers, a bad actor could send ones with
>incremented or otherwise changed numbers to make the bounce handling
>system
On 2018-02-17 03:48, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Unfortunately there are still some server accepting everything and
sending bounces without headers or malformed bounces.
This is not a small group. Every few months I get massive floods of
bounces from some spambot that decided forging my domain is a
16 matches
Mail list logo
