In <BCF3CEE9(_dot_)F9A0%molson(_at_)constantcontact(_dot_)com> "Olson,
Margaret" <molson(_at_)constantcontact(_dot_)com> writes:
This is a follow up to the discussion on jabber this afternoon, on comparing
SPF records to SenderID/MARID records.
thanks!
[ details deleted ] That makes up to
three providers for sending email, none of them related to one another.
Ok
For each of these three email providers, bounces are handled by the provider
in a manner appropriate to the function provided. Generally, for person to
person mail the bounces go back to the sender. For the other two, the
bounces are handled by the application. If you look at SPF version 1, each
provider publishes for his or her domain and there is no coordination
between the various means that the same sender uses to send mail. But it's
highly likely that the purported responsible domain in all three cases is
that of the sender. So for SenderID/MARID, there is a new record which
points to three other records: one each for the ISP, the shopping cart, and
the email marketing service.
SPFv1 has long had both include: and redirect= that, from what I can
tell, would handle these situations just fine.
For large companies, the tangled manner in which they send mail is even more
complicated, with multiple departments each outsourcing to multiple
providers.
I can believe that.
Using the PRD will mean that far more domains will need to be publishing
SenderID records than are publishing SPF records to get the same level of
participation.
I don't understand this at all. To the best of my knowledge, there is
no semantic difference between the SenderID and SPFv1 records. They
both have the same features and use the same algorithm. The only
difference is the syntax. Granted, the syntax difference may (but by
no means must) allow for future differences in semantics, but until
that happens, they are, as Jim Lyon pointed out, isomorphic.
-wayne