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.
Yes, and this is not only a theoretical issue: I can think of at least
one mass-market MTA that honors some obsolete source-routing syntax,
but "massages" the source-routing information in a non-pluggable (i.e.
not exposed via the developer API) part of the message flow.
But the primary issue with recommending source-routing syntax remains
that it is _expressly_ deprecated! We can't realistically expect the
adoption of known-obsolete technology--especially not with the pretty
twisted direction "use it *because* it is obsolete and will often not
be otherwise interpreted by the MTA."
Interestingly, one of V. Schryver's visceral _objections_ to the
technical soundness of SPF, IIRC, was that it supposedly proposes its
own source routing, in supposed ignorance of a supposed standard.
Source routing is inevitably going to be summoned up whenever one
discusses "embedding" information in the MAIL FROM:. Though we need to
be aware of the association, IMO, neither the SR specification nor its
obsolescence should have any direct bearing on SPF.
--Sandy
------------------------------------
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: sandy(_at_)cypressintegrated(_dot_)com
------------------------------------
-------
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?¡