Putting data in the header is OK but it means that the message has to be
read before the filtering takes place.
Putting the data in the DNS is somewhat cleaner, it is a logical extension
of the SPF and callerID proposals. It means that the decision to
accept/reject can be made at connect time.
This in turn means that the info that is returned to the sender in response
codes can be more expressive.
From <good guy>
201 Sendit and it will be delivered
From <bad gy>
666 Go away
From < questionable guy>
201.66 OK send it but it is going through the filter.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Greg
Connor
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:06 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] accreditation modifier
I agree with Phillip that there should be some way to verify that the
accreditation covers the domain in question, not "anyone's"
accreditation.
Is there a suggested format for TXT records that the bonded
sender and
others publish, or should publish? IMO, it should be a short message
suitable for putting in the headers, possibly containing a
URL to view the
accreditation statement for that domain, and/or where to
report it if the
mail seems abusive.
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200403.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=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com