On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 01:00:34PM -0400, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
|
| - I think Errors-To is depreciated, it was only ever a sendmail kludge
| and has never been formalized in any RFC, no other MTA's actually
| support it AFAIK. Return-Path gets more milage.
Hm. isn't Return-Path added by the delivering MDA, past the possibility
of bouncing?
I'm happy to take out the "errors-to" scope, but it feels like there
should be something in the headers to match against besides header-from.
header-from will be used very very rarely anyway, on the argument from
mailing lists, but i could see it making sense for very special accounts
like service(_at_)paypal(_dot_)com(_dot_)
| - Further to above, people who "bounce" or "redirect" a message to
| a third party may hit the same "gotcha" as "The .forward problem",
| but in this case there is sometimes a "Resent-From" header.
from the mutt manual:
6.3.43. envelope_from
Type: boolean
Default: no
When set, mutt will try to derive the message's envelope sender from
the "From:" header. Note that this information is passed to sendmail
command using the "-f" command line switch, so don't set this option
if you are using that switch in ``$sendmail'' yourself, or if the
sendmail on your machine doesn't support that command line switch.
there's a good reason it defaults to 'no' --- if i sent you a message,
and you bounced it to somebody who was over quota, i shouldn't be the
one to get the bounce.
| - 2.1 "domain administrators MUST be prepared to upgrade" may
| be more condusive to early adaption if it were a "SHOULD be prepared".
| Is it reasonable to assume the implentations of a new DNS RR type would
| maintain backwards compat?
If we were Microsoft, we would introduce the new RR type by packing
Exciting New Features into it, so that everybody would WANT to upgrade.
But we aren't Microsoft, so I don't know how the upgrade path will work.
Backwards compatibility is a good thing.
I dunno. Part of me says the TXT record shouldn't be used for this.
Part of me says "Frodo didn't kill Gollum because he had a part to play
in the end." Spam is worth sacrificing TXT for. It makes plot sense.
| - 2.2 This I should be able to cite chapter and verse, but I can't offhand
| :-O, but could it be "considered harmful" to put underscores in A recs?
| (the special subdomain _spf, its working in my tests but could it break
| any resolvers or applications?)
I would like to hear reports of breakage if anybody can come up with them.
I remember BIND 4 objecting to underscores, but that was a long time ago.
-------
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?¡