On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 04:22:07PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
The timestamp is a good idea because it helps the sender domain track
down the circumstances of the rejection, and it can use every clue it
can get.
This will only be in the description for sender domains aware of SPF and
I assume SFP-enabled MTAs will appropriately communicate SFP-related 550s.
While I agree DNS is a proper place to combat forgeries, I don't think it's
the right place to specify error messages for clients such as MTAs using DNS.
In fact, the biggest surprise SPF might cause in the future will be when
MTAs will react less friendly to e-mail from domains resulting in unknown,
in which case there probably isn't a TXT message for SPF in the first place,
so useful messages generated by SPF clients will then be far more important.
With decent client software, I don't expect any kind of demand for
customized error messages and I don't feel a lack thereof would hurt
adoption. It's not necessary if we have good clients and might not even be
respected properly or at all if we have bad ones.
Rob
--
Rob Kaper | "In the name of sheer pity, won't someone operate on
cap(_at_)capsi(_dot_)com | Chairman Arafat and put that poor cancer into a
cleaner
www.capsi.com | environment? -- Rick Brookhiser
-------
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_)½§Åv¼ð¦¾Øß´ë ù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com
pgpz7yJ6fEH80.pgp
Description: PGP signature