Meng:
Is unified spf being discussed on a list somewhere? Sounds like a
really good idea.
Thanks,
Ken
Meng Weng Wong [28/08/04 01:04 -0400]:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 12:23:16AM -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
| the headers? I would have never thought of that!). So just ignore it
| until:
|
| a) it has actually been found to work
| and
| b) it is unencumbered
I agree. Sender ID is aimed more at MUAs anyway, so it
isn't that big a deal if MTAs have trouble with it --- it's
simply not that relevant to MTAs. What MTAs need to pay
attention to is Unified SPF which will be unencumbered and
is already well on its way.
| I'm no politician, but it seems that we need to convince
| mail senders to publish SPF in addition to whatever senderID ends up
| needing. It authenticates the MTA, which is needed in addition to
| RFC2822 validation.
Agreed. When we get Unified SPF fully worked out (Mark has
come up with a very clever lightweight version of CSV) we'll
probably be able to roll that into spfv2:
example.com TXT "v=spf2.0/pra,mailfrom ...."
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
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
--
MailChannels: Imagine no more spam
--
http://www.mailchannels.com
MailChannels Corporation
Suite 1600, 1188 West Georgia St.
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Ken Simpson, CEO
+1-604-729-1741