Talk:Variable envelope return path

VERP
VERP can also mean Visitor Experience Resource Protection a management system used in USA national parks.

The end of the article claims: >>Systems that implement greylisting will cause each post to the mailing list to be delayed unless they treat "similar" sender addresses as being equivalent.<< This not correct for the encoding schema shown in the article (wikipedians-owner-bob=example.org@example.net). This would be correct for cases when the mailing list software also includes an id of the message in the MAIL FROM -- then indeed, every sender address would be different. Maybe this scheme could be added to the article and the note about greylisting could be clarified. 62.40.79.66 08:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Jan Pazdziora

Signed VERP
Hi, I don't see the point of a separate Signed VERP article, mostly a stub with two external links to related products, therefore I proposed to merge it. --217.184.142.6 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay with me, so long as the links in other articles pointing to Signed VERP can be pointed to the subheading within VERP. All that matters is that it can be linked to directly.  Megacz (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * don't merge - I would say these two ideas should not be merged. I would say that "signed VERP" is actually misleading as the two ideas are different.  Yes, they both create unique return path, but VERP is designed to handle problems with bounces from a mailing list that a domain runs, while BATV/SES/Signed VERP/etc. are designed to handle problems with bounces coming from email that the domain didn't generate.  Likewise, I don't think Sender Rewriting Scheme should be merged into this article even though it also generates unique return paths.  It is designed to handle problems with bounces from forwarding e-mail.  Really, If "signed VERP" gets merged, then I can't see why SRS wouldn't be. Wrs1864 (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the article was straight forward, thanks. --217.184.142.38 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

mlmmj
Why was mlmmj removed from the list of software using VERP (with the comment "rm spam")? Mlmmj is a MIT/X11 licensed mailing list manager, so I don't think that entry is very spam-like. --87.55.152.218 (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tone?
The following passage strikes me as snarky and un-encyclopedic ''Another problem with VERP (and with any automatic bounce handling scheme) is that there will always be some recalcitrant MTAs on the Internet that fail to follow even the simplest standards. VERP depends on the recipients' MTAs following the rule that bounces are sent to the envelope sender. This has been a standard requirement since the dawn of SMTP in 1982'' ... 63.153.201.118 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would add that there is also no reference for this claim, to begin with. 87.190.53.66 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)