Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS
2005-05-26 12:04:04
John L wrote:
Could you show me the SPF records I would use to indicate that
mta.example.com is valid as an EHLO but not as a bounce address
domain while example.com is a valid bounce address domain but not an
EHLO. If it'll help, assume they both have an A record of 12.34.56.78.
You cannot with SPFv1 (based on your assumption). You missed the
point: It doesn't matter, primarily the HELO is only checked if the
MAIL FROM fails.
A pass from the HELO or MAIL FROM results in SPF PASS status.
My point, which I would have thought was obvious, is that SPF provides
no way to say that EHLO example.com or MAIL FROM:<foo(_at_)mta(_dot_)example(_dot_)com>
are invalid. In practice, I see quite a lot of forged mail like that,
and SPF's inability to deal with it is a significant problem.
Yes, and if people could write the final version the first time then,
well, they wouldn't need versions, would they.
It's not that you don't want SPF, you just want it to do more. Stay on
board, there are good things coming once they get past the SPFv1 spec.
Terry
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
--
Terry Fielder
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Associate Director Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"), (continued)
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"), wayne
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"), Tony Finch
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"), wayne
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"), John Levine
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS, Terry Fielder
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS, John L
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS, Terry Fielder
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS, John L
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS,
Terry Fielder <=
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS, wayne
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS, Terry Fielder
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS, wayne
- Re: SPF and HELO, Julian Mehnle
- Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"), Julian Mehnle
- Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"), william(at)elan.net
- Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"), John Levine
- Re: SPF PASS, Terry Fielder
- Re: SPF PASS, william(at)elan.net
- Re: SPF PASS, Terry Fielder
|
|
|