In <400D8945(_dot_)8010504(_at_)axelero(_dot_)hu> "Za'mbori, Zolta'n"
<zamboriz(_at_)axelero(_dot_)hu> writes:
MTAs *may* send bounces to either envelope-return(_at_)example or it may
send bounces to envelope-return(_at_)envelope-sender(_dot_) You have no idea
which, and you have no control over what will happen.
Source routing won't work for bouncing.
[quote from RFC2821 snipped]
Right. You have no idea if a given MTA conforms to the *proposed
standard* of RFC2821 or the *internet standard* of RFC821, or neither.
You have no control over what will happen.
There is a certain irony in quoting RFC2821 about how source routing
should be done while ignoring that RFC2821 says that source routing
should no longer be generated.
while SPF can check that the SMTP client IP is authorized to
send mail by 'envelope-sender'.
SPF *may* be given @envelope-sender to check, or it may be given
@example to check. You have no idea which, and you have no control
over what will happen.
Source routing won't work for SPF checking.
I hope that SPF-query is (or will be) RFC2821 compliant. Than routing
syntax in the MAIL FROM command will help to continue relaying,
forwarding, gatewaying.
Again, the SPF checking may or may not be done on the information
given on the MAIL FROM command. It could just as easily be given
information that has been cleaned up after the obsolete source routing
has been removed.
-wayne
-------
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?¡