On Saturday 13 December 2003 09:21 pm, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
This concept is the basis for Certificate Authority based verification
schemes.
Another type of unforgable signature that isn't encrypted is the type I use
in MVP.
So you are into CA's and sigs.
Try http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/forgery.html
SPF is a simplified system based on DNS. CA's and sigs are interesting but
until an RFC is agreed apon, well...
Now on to SPF --
First, just accept it that email will be passed along by relays. (Somebody
earlier said message delivery is usually direct, and I'm just defying that
by saying Message delivery is not often direct. It is done by relays.)
It usually (ie. more than 50%) is.
Second, let me make this assumption -- If joe(_at_)joe(_dot_)com sends a
message to
mary(_at_)mary(_dot_)com, then it should say it's from
joe(_at_)joe(_dot_)com(_dot_) In other words, I
am saying that relays should not change the email address of the sender. If
relays were to change the sender's address, then Mary will have no idea who
sent it, because the path from joe to mary is not guaranteed. Especially if
they travel.
Relays, as you put it, don't change the email address of the sender.
I mean, good grief. Look at every mail you receive. Use your own eyes and
look at the mails you receive from this list.
The sender is there !!!
In every single one !!!
The only thing that 'changes' as such, is the Return-Path:
Martin
--
Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people.
-- W. C. Fields
-------
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-02.9.4.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?¡