wayne wrote:
The "SHOULD check HELO" was added in 2004, not 2005.
This was changed to "RECOMMENDED" in 2005.
SHOULD is the same as RECOMMENDED (2119 section 3). BTW, the
first three sections together need only ten lines including
two blank separator lines, that could be a record.
<http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/11> => 2004-12-04
Right, it was 2004-12, not 2005. I probably confused it with
the time when I read the Council log or minutes.
The DKIM proto-WG is currently going through the process of
trying to specify "What is DKIM intended for?" It's a good
idea and one that the SPF folks skipped in 2003.
Yes for the former (DKIM) - no idea what you (SPF) did in 2003,
I'm the one RMX-fan who ended up joining SPF because I thought
that it _is_ RMX ;-)
certainly *one* of the reasons that *some* (maybe even most)
people had for promoting SPF, but certainly not the only
reason.
Other reasons include the desire by domain owners to not have
their domain name forged in the MAIL FROM and HELO domains,
whether they caused backscatter or not.
Where it doesn't cause backscatter I'm not very worried (please
no offers to join the "bounces-to" fraction), or in other words
if I'd want S/MIME I'd know where to find it.
you could make more reliable use of whitelists and blacklists
Yes, that was covered by what John said, and I agreed with it,
"it makes sense for the reasons you have stated". When you say
"WL or BL" those are IMO special incarnations of "reputation".
Maybe the poor men's edition.
If your only goal is to get rid of backscatter, things like
SES do a much better job.
AFAIK for SES you have to control all mail-outs (minimally you
could get away with the MUA) and all corresponding MXs, where
you'd block bogus bounces. Not realistic for many users. Bye
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf