-----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 Meng
Weng Wong
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 7:56 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] What else to go into the pot?
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:03:13AM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
|
| Reasonable people can disagree whether changes should be SPF1 or SPF2.
| There are good arguments on both sides. As SPF1 is not yet
frozen, in my
| mind at least, I'd prefer to see an changes as part of SPF1.
It seems that
| we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot by coming out of the
chute with two
| versions of the language and parser, before most people even published
| records. Other people will disagree.
Anyone who would like to add stuff to SPF should please
speak up now, but also speak up in awareness of the Unified
drafts posted at http://spf.pobox.com/unified/
There's a lot of editing happening in the next few days.
thanks
meng
I hope it's not to late for comments....
A Unified Approach to Host Authorization in SMTP
Recommend the following paragraph (or something similar) be added to 5.2
Limitations:
In an SPF-conformant environment, senders identify permitted sending
entities such as MTAs or IP addresses. If this entity is shared by
multiple organizations, such as an SMTP host provided by a web
hosting company, SPF provides no method for determining if particular
users are authorized to send e-mail for a particular domain. It is
the responsiblity of the sending entity to ensure users only send
e-mail for domains for which they are authorized users.
Scott Kitterman