Dave,
I distinguished use from source. How it is used, versus where it comes
from. RFC2821 specifies both of these. My observation about the
RFC2821/RFC821 error is the first. The second remains unchanged.
The *use* of the data in SPF (for example) makes an assumption about the
*source* (which is represented as an address which *can* be used for
returns - this assumption supported by the RFC text). I gather that you
hold that the RFC is wrong, that the assumption is therefore invalid and
such use is incorrect.
It is a simple fact of the real world that a handling return
address is
not in any way required to specify the author or sender of the
message.
This is the point: I see the RFCs specify sender identification, which is a
return address. Your position seems to be that all that's required in the
real world is a return address, and that *use* of the data as sender
identification is bad.
Your problem is that if systems which use MAIL FROM as sender
identification become widely deployed, the "real world" has changed out
from under you. And you can't point at the RFCs to support your position.
Regards,
JK
--
He who is determined not to be satisfied with anything short of perfection will
never do any-thing to please himself or others.
William Hazlitt (1778-1830)