On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 14:06, Alan DeKok wrote:
Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> wrote:
Perhaps one could describe the PRA algorithm as the MTA considering
prior hops, when the accountable identity is deciphered.
Or, as the intermediate hops disclaiming responsibility for the
message. I'm not sure it's a good idea for entities in the network to
forward traffic they won't accept responsibility for.
With Sender-ID, the accountable entity is based solely upon RFC2822
message content, this may change at each hop when a header is added,
Then the intermediate hops have claimed responsibility for the
message, and therefore are claiming to originate the message.
I agree with this view. PRA does not represent the accountable entity,
if viewed as the MTA being accountable. If authenticated, the EHLO
domain properly provides the accountable entity. Message content should
not excuse those running the MTA.
-Doug