At 16:15 12-12-2008, Douglas Otis wrote:
This is abusing the iprev method when reverse DNS is not examined.
There is no result that says "skipped" just to note the IP address.
I take it you want a method that provides the IP address as a
result. You could write an I-D to specify a method and update the
relevant IANA registry.
It is also wrong to suggest that a domain found with either Sender-ID
or SPF is more stable. It remains conjecture whether a domain that
appears to have authorized the SMTP client had established
restrictions on the use of their identifier. This uncertainty occurs
due to the lack of consensus regarding the basic scope of the SPF
record, versus the scope defined by Sender-ID. While the IESG
recommends advice given in Sender-ID, there is a large segment of the
community that ignored this advice. As such, a domain's relationship
with the SMTP client is not assured.
If you want to beat on Sender-ID or SPF, this draft is not the right
place to do it.
Quoting RFC 4406 (SenderID):
"In both cases, the domain associated with an e-mail address is what
is authenticated"
Quoting RFC 4408 (SPF):
"An additional benefit to mail receivers is that after the use of an
identity is verified, local policy decisions about the mail can be
made based on the sender's domain, rather than the host's IP address.
This is advantageous because reputation of domain names is likely to
be more accurate than reputation of host IP addresses.
Whether I agree or disagree with these two specifications; I'm not
here to determine the validity of methods which has been published as RFCs.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html