On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 05:34 +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
in the case of SPF version 1, whether the sender expected the
bounce-address or the PRA be used as a basis for acceptance
Who is really most deserving of this eloquent message?
Care to comment on this message?
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05502.html
Or, how about this message?
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05572.html
You are ignoring a reality that Microsoft has usurped the definition of
the v=spf1 record and clearly has this record in their pocket. This is
evidenced by their clout at various email conferences. The "bounce-
address" and not "PRA" version of SPF must be defined by the version 2
record. The sooner SPF advocates accept this, the greater the chances
SPF will not morph into Sender-ID by way of a reputation trap.
-Doug