Draft section 2.1.3 refers to a "new message" several times, and states
that list expanders provide an example. But list expanders do not
generally elide/replace message-ids, and therefore -- using standard
terminology from the core email RFCs -- there is in fact no "new message";
a list expander redistributes the *same* message (with unchanged message-
id).
In trying to create a description of the current architecture, there is a
balancing act between making the document strictly reflect "
It seems to me the fundamental advantage of CSV over SPF is that CSV
doesn't try to associate domain names with IP addresses outside of that
domain.
The fundamental advantage(S) are that:
a) CSV uses an identity related to direct, local MTA operations, rather than
referring back some unknown number of hops to a content author who has no
involvement in the operation of the MTA, and
b) CSV is simple. Extremely simple. It took an enormous amount of effort to
make it this simple...
The focus on MTA operations ID is not a minor matter. One small example of
the benefit is that operations folk can focus on aggregate behavior, across
many messages, many message authors, and many (possibly compromised) machines.
SPF is strictly focussed on per-message behavior and does not provide a means
of assessing aggregate MTA operations.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net