Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)

["Hector Santos" <winserver.support@winserver.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
To: "ASRG" <asrg@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID
Verification)


> And I assert that even that is a new requirement.  Valid from what point
of
> view?
>
> Suppose the (not uncommon case) of a sending MTA that is not the same host
> as the MX for the sender's domain.  Call these MTA1 and MX1.  A message is
> transmitted via MTA1 to the recipient's MX, which I'll call MX2.  If the
> sender mailbox is valid at MTA1 -- that is, MTA1 can successfully deliver
> a DSN to that mailbox in the event of a 5xx response from MX2 -- where is
> the requirement that the mailbox also be valid when presented as a RCPT
TO:
> at MX1?

C: connect to MX2
S: 250 welcome
C:  HELO MTA1
S: 250 HELLO there!   (ignore any validation here for the moment)
C: MAIL FROM: MTA1@MX1
--- BEGIN WCSAP VALIDATION ---
C: connect to MX1
S: 250 welcome
C:  HELO MX2
S:  250  Hello!
C:  RCPT TO: MTA1@MX1
S:  552 - Sorry doesn't exist
C: QUIT
S: 250
--- END WCSAP VALIDATION return 4xx or 5xx depending on policy ---
S: 552,  Local user not found!
C: QUIT

I don't see the problem.

Also, keep in mind that a  return path is persistent cross all routes.

---
Hector Santos, CTO
WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server"
support: http://www.winserver.com
sales: http://www.santronics.com



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg