On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:50:23PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
| Phil White <spf(_at_)radagast(_dot_)itmagic(_dot_)ltd(_dot_)uk>:
| > 3) The Sender rewriting scheme.
| > I'm sorry. I think this is horrible, and just plain ugly. It seems far too
| > complicated, and therefore prone to breaking. I cannot stress this one
point
| > too strongly. Sorry.
|
| He's got a good point. It is ugly.
|
Yeah, I hate sender rewriting too. Is there a better way?
We last visited this at
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200310/0022.html
It looks like more and more ISPs are implementing a crude native version
of SPF by rejecting, for example, mail from:
<(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com> that
doesn't actually come from a yahoo.com machine. (I think they use PTR).
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡