spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: review of the MS Caller-ID draft

2004-02-24 14:44:30
In <20040224210112(_dot_)GM27676(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng 
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:

| But after a quick scan, I can't see that it really discusses the SMTP
| envelope at all; nor what would be an appropriate action to take at a
| forwarding host or end-point host if a header were determined to be invalid.
| Bounce it I guess?

Caller-ID explicitly ignores the SMTP envelope.

Caller-ID's action is to silently sink the message.  [...]

I haven't reviewed this published spec for Caller-ID, but I suspect
things haven't changed much.

Without checking the envelope-from, you can't safely bounce email.  As
far as I'm concerned, this is A Very Bad Thing.  Once you have a known
good evelope-from, you can do lots of other stuff later on and bounce
if you reject the email.

Caller-ID and DomainKeys both need something like SPF or SRS+callbacks
to make them safe to use.


I personally have strong doubts that either Caller-ID nor DomainKeys
can really solve the problem of From: header forging.  I also have my
doubts that they won't break a lot of real-world stuff.  However, if
they succeed, that is wonderful.


-wayne