[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt

2005-05-25 06:08:08

On Tue May 24 2005 13:05, Frank Ellermann wrote:

And I wouldn't need SPF.  That's the point, if STD 10 would
(still) work as designed something like RMX or SPF would be
completely unnecessary:

No. If a rogue sender at sent mail with a reverse path
of nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de which bounced, when the bounce got
back to, the part of the route would be stripped,
leaving nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de, and that's where the bounce
would go.

Now if you were able to roll the clock back farther to use a
flat host table rather than DNS, you *might* (i.e. maybe) be
able to make a weak case. [*]

But DNS isn't going to be abandoned for a flat hosts table, nor
are DNS MX records going to be replaced by explicit routes.

* If you were able to roll the clock back that far, we'd be
talking about FTP MAIL/MLFL commands, not SMTP, and you'd have
FTP login/password mechanisms for authentication.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>