Re: MTAMARK (was: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt)

On Wed May 25 2005 05:43, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> > On Tue May 24 2005 16:43, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 10:09:12AM -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> > > > On Mon May 23 2005 14:39, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > > > > The "surviving" LMAP proposals (CSV, MTAMARK, SPF)
> > > > > do very different things, SPF covers some older ideas.
> > > > They all suffer from similar problems involving the issues
> > >        ***
> > >
> > > *ALL* is wrong as MTAMARK does neither of the 3 points you have
> > > outlined.
> > OK, I stand corrected.
> The same is true for CSV.
No.  Being based in a comparison of IP addresses derived from a DNS RR
related to a domain name from EHLO/HELO, it suffers from the same
problems with that approach as SPF.