Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
I believe we have seen something similar, years ago, on this list.
Frank if memory serves me well?
My case or the almost identical "Olson-objection" was that:
xyzzy.claranet.de : "v=spf1 something -all" (not under my control)
mailoutx.hamburg.example + hamburg.example : "" (no SPF policy)
The MSA.hamburg.example "enforced submission rights" to harden its
SMTP-after-POP setup, therefore I had to use <me(_at_)hamburg(_dot_)example>
as MAIL FROM, as specified in RFC 4409 6.1 (at that time 2476 6.1).
Otherwise my MUA doesn't care which provider I use to send pending
mails in its "outbox", it won't add any "Sender" header field. The
MSA also didn't care what I do within my mail, it only verified the
Therefore the PRA was nobody(_at_)xyzzy, and any SenderID PRA check of
"my" SPF policy - the "my" is limited to "I proposed it, and my ISP
implemented it" - would result in a PRA FAIL.
In theory that's still the case, in practice I don't use this MSA
anymore. Nobody bothered to tell my ISP that they might wish to
"opt-out" from PRA because that was proposed in some obscure draft
published about six months after "my" perfectly fine SPF policy.
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
please go to