On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Andrew Newton wrote:
In rereading the Jabber logs and reading the recent threads on SUBMITTER, I'd
like to point everyone to a simple sentence Meng wrote in the Jabber session:
http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/marid(_at_)ietf(_dot_)xmpp(_dot_)org/2004-08-04.html
[11:05:42] <mengwong> if submitter is not present, we fall back to
mail-from. people are missing this.
In defense of "people", I reread marid-submitter and marid-core this morning
and could not find the place where this was stated. However, this statement
is significant. I'm not saying it is a good or bad idea, but it profoundly
changes how SUBMITTER is used, the nexus of SUBMITTER and PRA, and even the
semantics of the RR version identifier.
The reason Sender-ID falls back to checking MAIL FROM is because SUBMITTER
may be omitted if it is the same as MAIL FROM. If a Sender-ID
implementation is checking the MAIL FROM in the absence of SUBMITTER,
should it use the v=spf1 record or the v=marid1 record?
Sites must be able to write a sender-ID record that is aware of which
identity is being checked (header sender or bounce address) since these
have different semantics and distinct sets of addresses may be valid in
each context, e.g. if the site uses BATV. This might be acheived through
different record version numbers, or by extending the macro language.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
BERWICK ON TWEED TO WHITBY: WEST OR SOUTHWEST 2 OR 3 INCREASING 3 OR 4. FAIR.
GOOD. SLIGHT OR SMOOTH.