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?¡