On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Craig Whitmore wrote:
Not really SPF. but...
I am using Exim at the moment and have SRS coded messages on all
forwarded messages and BATV coded messages on all sent out messages
directly .
Would there be any problem in people's opinions to use SRS for all
SMTP sent out messages as well instead of BATV. Or is using SRS
->forward. BATV->smtp send.. the "best" way of doing things? and
SRS on ALL messages ugly.
BATV for sent, SRS for forwarded is better than SRS only. I had used
old SES (before they included headers and body) for the purpose, but
ran into difficult with greylisting (sigs change too often) - so had to switch
back to SRS only. Now that you've prompted me to examine BATV, I think I'll
use that instead of old SES. With daily timestamps, it shouldn't be a problem
with greylisting.
SRS only has the advantage of being simpler (don't have to test whether
mail is forwarded). But it sure is ugly. I sometimes wish SRS had
a rule that the original domain can be ommited when it is the same as
the sending domain. Of course, I can *make* it have that rule, since
only my MTA will evaluate it. But it was valuable to have SRS
interoperable between implementations, and nice to be able for other
MTAs to extract the original sender for whitelisting purposes. OTOH, there is
no RFC for SRS yet - so I could experiment with omitting the original
domain when redundant. Maybe it will get added when we get around to
making SRS an RFC.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com