In
<1088850491(_dot_)2786(_dot_)49(_dot_)camel(_at_)bash(_dot_)adsl-64-142-13-68(_dot_)sonic(_dot_)net>
Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> writes:
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 21:42, wayne wrote:
You appear to be confusing SPF with Sender-ID. SPF vets the 2821.FROM
and the 2821.HELO. Sender-ID and Caller-ID vet the
2822.From:/Sender:/etc.
I posted the following messages as a direct reply to address your
confusion:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02494.html
I think much of this confusion comes from continuing reference to SPF+
which has yet to be defined.
Your message is the only reference to "SPF+" I can find on this
mailing list. Since you have apparently created the term "SPF+",
please go ahead and define it.
As such, there is no clear definition yet
as to what SPF _currently_ checks, so your distinctions are only
somewhat accurate, if at all. I agree that looking at the historical
documents of what SPF _had_ been checking and what Sender-ID _is_
checking is different, but as Sender-ID _is_ the current incarnation of
SPF, why are you making this distinction?
Sender-ID is not SPF. That is why Sender-ID has a different name than
SPF.
There are no protocal police. There is nothing anyone can do to force
people to use or not use either SPF or Sender-ID. There is certainly
a large and growing number of people who continue to use SPF. There
are also people who almost certainly start using Sender-ID once stable
specs published (e.g. ones without XML requirements, etc.)
As such, your reference to SPF in the past tense has no basis in
reality. Similarly, your reference to people using Sender-ID in the
present tense has no basis in reality.
Are you suggesting a desire
to abandon Sender-ID? This is confusing.
I have made no such suggestion that I want to abandon Sender-ID. If
the PRA algorithm works as well as claimed, I will add it to my SPF
library and have it support both SPF and Sender-ID.
Now, since SPF-classic (see link above) doesn't have anything to do
with the 2822 information and *does* validate the HELO domain, most of
your message is, at best, irrelevant.
Here you are confused. [discussion of CSV vs SPF snipped]
I have more to comment on this, but I'm afraid I'm already 5 minutes
late leaving to pick up my kids, so I'll have to post it tonight.
-wayne