On Tuesday 08 January 2008 22:40, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Don't both these proposals amount to "forwarders" saying "trust me I'm
a forwarder - you can just skip rejecting SPF Fail mail from me"?
No, you got both Michael and me wrong. Each of our proposals is merely
trying to establish a solid identity that receivers can actually PUT on
their forwarder whitelist. Of course receivers still have to explicitly
do that themselves.
With "i-am=", I can put "HELO=forwarder.org" on my whitelist, even if the
forwarder doesn't use that identity directly in their HELOs. Currently I
cannot do that, but I'd rather have to list all their individual HELOs
(which are bound to change over time).
"i-am=" is merely an out-of-band reformulation of Michael's in-band (SMTP
extension) idea for transmitting an additional identity.
OK. Fair enough. That could be useful, although I'm not sure anything other
than a regular SPF record is needed.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com