From: Michael Deutschmann [mailto:michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net]
Sent: woensdag 9 januari 2008 9:56
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Forwarder whitelisting counter-proposal: SPF
Which brings up the old question again: why not use the already
existing ENVID (RFC 3461) for this purpose?
I don't see the connection. ENVID seems intended to be unique for each
message, and is intended to stay with a message all the way. The SWK
only appears on the sender-smarthost to recipient-MX hop, and is
constant for a given forwarding relationship.
I know what ENVID was intended for. :) RFC 1891, section 5.4, reads:
The ENVID esmtp-keyword MUST have an associated esmtp-value. No
meaning is assigned by the mail system to the presence or absence of
this parameter or to any esmtp-value associated with this parameter;
the information is used only by the sender or his user agent.
Since "No meaning is assigned by the mail system to the presence or
absence of this parameter," it really doesn't interfere with anything,
either. So I don't quite get where your "gigantic poison pill" is coming
At any rate, I'm just saying the idea is to use ENVID is not new. Nor, for
that matter an "AUTH" extension to the MAIL command, such as the
responsible submitter extension, using SUBMITTER, instead of AUTH as
extension to the MAIL command.(1) Most of these proposals never seem to
have made it; I reckon all for more or less the same reason: it requires
an official extension to SMTP (whereas SRS can simply be implemented
without first traversing a lengthy IETF track).
Point is largely moot, of course, as I'm neither a propent of using ENVID,
nor AUTH, and simply believe publishing an extra SPF record will do the
trick much easier.
(1) See, for instance,
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