kalob3: BATV format?

[Johannes Graumann]

Thanks for your input. Looked straight forward to implement, but based on 
your comments I will refrain.

Sincerely, Joh

Kolab Users wrote:

>  
> 
> Hi Joh,
> 
> IMHO BATV's major problem is that it doesn't play well
> with greylisting systems. Since there's so many greylisting systems out
> on the internet, that means implementing it may just cause unnecessary
> delays in emails, for little gain.
> 
> IMHO recipient-checks (backscatter
> milters like scam-back, etc) handle this problem well enough.
> 
> Please
> read here for more information:
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounce_Address_Tag_Validation [1]
> 
> On
> 2013-02-18 20:48, Johannes Graumann wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I have been
> testing a kolab3/Debian wheezy set up using
>>
> http://www.allaboutspam.com/email-server-testOne of the comments that
> comes back is:
>> 
>>> Email server is not using BATV format while sending
> out emails. BATV is recommended to ensure that your users do not become
> a victim of bounce floods.
>> 
>> To the experienced admins here: is this
> worth implementing? And if so: what
>> might an implementation
> (preferably on Debian) look like and consist from?
>> 
>> Thanks for your
> input.
>> 
>> Sincerely, Joh
>> 
>>
> _______________________________________________
>> Kolab-users mailing
> list
>> Kolab-users at kolab.org
>>
> https://www.intevation.de/mailman/listinfo/kolab-users
> 
> --
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael.
>  
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounce_Address_Tag_Validation