RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework

I agree, a challenge can be seen as a DSN or a new message. My point is
that in either case, the MAIL FROM or REPLYTO should be consistent with
the challenger's email address, otherwise 2 C/R systems will challenge
each other's challenge.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Nelson [mailto:scott@spamwolf.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 7:09 AM
> To: asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework
> 
> 
> At 03:22 PM 6/5/03 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote:
> >At 10:52 AM -0400 6/5/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> >>The "FROM" field is the one that will get C/R checked, since that is
> >>the mailbox that sent the email. Additionally, the "MAIL FROM" 
> >>addresses that is used in SMTP is not intended to this purpose, 
> >>rather it indicates a mailbox to which errors should be sent to. It 
> >>is perfectly legal and sometimes even recommended in RFC 
> 2821 to use 
> >><> for the MAIL FROM.
> >
> >Are you advocating that C/R systems send mail to the From: address
> >rather than MAIL FROM?  That strikes me as exceedingly wrong.  MAIL 
> >FROM is for notification of delivery problems--and that's exactly 
> >what C/R is.  Furthermore, we've seen on this list what happens when 
> >a C/R system sends to From: instead of MAIL FROM--everyone who posts 
> >to the list gets challenged by the person who forgot to 
> whitelist the 
> >mailing list.  This is the "On Vacation" message problem all over 
> >again.
> >
> 
> There are basically two choices;
> Envelope from a.k.a. MAIL FROM, and 
> Reply-To: (or From: if there's no Reply-To:)
> 
> 
> If you view a challenge as a DSN then envelope from is the proper
> choice.  I'd even go so far as to format the challenge as an
> RFC 1894 compliant DSN.  (This has the interesting side effect
> that challenging a mailing list is likely to unsubscribe you
> automatically)  And like any DSN, I recommend including the 
> message-id in the In-Reply-To: and Reference: headers.
> 
> If however, you view a challenge as a new message, 
> then sending it to the Reply-To: (or From: if there is no Reply-To:)
> is the more logical choice.
> 
> Personally I feel that challenges are DSNs, so envelope from
> is the right choice, but I can see the "new message" 
> point of view too.
> 
> 
> Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 
> 
> 

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