spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New macro proposed %{u}

2004-02-03 12:11:17
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 6:49 pm, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Process is the wrong level in any case, you want user account.

Yes of course - that is why I suggested identd rather than simply the client 
port (which is available with requiring any kind of callout).

A macro for just the client port would still be able to do the job (although 
less conveniently) and would avoid the anti-ident objection.

If you want to do this you should go to domain keys or smime. Same answer if
you want to have robust mua filtering when opening a month old email.

Neither of these are likely to become popular for sender authentication, so it 
is hardly a useful suggestion.

The macro scheme is where a lot of consumer resistance is hit amongst
developers and big isps. In particular macros that require protocol actions
are going to be highly unpopular.

I can tell that from the level of resistance on this forum alone.

- Dan

-------
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-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
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>