spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF + Challenge/Response

2004-01-13 12:46:31
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:52:56PM +0000, Dan Boresjo wrote:

| On Tuesday 13 January 2004 2:41 pm, tv+spf(_at_)duh(_dot_)org wrote:
| > Ideally, a SMTP reject rather than bounce (to lower the likelihood of
| > bouncing to a forged third party).
| 
| Since the message has already passed SPF checks, there is no risk of bouncing 
| to a third party. 

So it could be plausible for a network using C/R to use SPF solely for
the decision to send the confirmation request or discard the mail without
a bounce.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN       | http://linuxhomepage.com/      http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/   http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------
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?¡


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>