On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:58:29AM +0100, Roy Badami wrote:
| > I liked someone's previous suggestion that the forwarding mail server
| > should change the envelope address and NOT the from address.
|
| A transition strategy can't meaningfully say that valid mail will
| bounce until _everyone_ adopts SPF and SRS... So it needs to address
| the case of legacy forwarders in a way other than saying that the
| receiver SHOULD bounce valid mail (which is essentially what the
| current draft says, according to my reading).
i proposed that adopters set default=softdeny until a sunrise date; that
gives people time to upgrade or workaround the .forward problem.
| I can try and suggest a suitable wording as to what I think the draft
| should say instead, if it still isn't clear to people what I'm getting
| at...
yes, please; think of spf as an opensource protocol; patches welcome.
so after spf has taken the world by storm we'll see RHSBLs and the like
become more important. maybe it's time to start thinking about what a
Distributed Reputation Protocol might look like, for use in making
judgements about sender domains.
we could call it Judge:Drepp.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡