On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:58:41AM +0100, Roy Badami wrote:
|
| CSV/CSA takes a very different approach, and is also of benefit.
| Whilst it would be possible to validate the HELO identity using an SPF
| or XML syntax, the requirements of CSV's problem space make that
| overkill.
"Overkill" is relative --- if the evalute_spf function is
already available, might as well apply it to the HELO name
and get back something useful.
I have been calling this approach "Unified SPF" --- it
embraces the CSV and the MTAMark/SS semantics using the SPF
syntax and lookup, just as SPF has embraced the CallerID
semantics with SenderID.
People have been mentioning Unified SPF on-list a little bit
lately but I thought I should probably put it forward
officially and see what people think.
| The two approaches seem complementary to me; is there any reason why
| this WG can't advance both to PS?
I explain in more detail at
http://spf.pobox.com/slides/unified%20spf/
Comments are welcome.
meng