william(at)elan.net wrote:
But despite my offer to work with them towards common goal:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05147.html
they have shown no interest in this so far.
Yes, I've seen this one, and some disputes about SUBMITTER vs.
HELO. But at the moment I don't want to write in the former
MARID list (mxcomp).
Actually I still haven't got the idea of your draft. If I
understand it correctly (?), you've invented a new identity
SUBMITTER, together with all technical details like a new
ESMTP capability (EHLO response), a new MAIL FROM parameter,
and a new spf2.0/submit scope.
As far as I can judge it, it would work perfectly as soon as
it's implemented, No technical problems (much unlike PRA,
which is a collection of half-baked patented ideas intended to
generate false positives and completely new vulnerabilities).
But I still don't understand why we need a SUBMITTER identity
at all, in addition to the known MAIL FROM identity. Where
would I need or want an additional identity, as a normal user ?
It's certainly another solution for forwarders, an alternative
to SRS or similar schemes, let alone 551. But it's not really
simpler than trusted-forwarders.org - IMHO quite the contrary,
because it works only with updated MTAs on both sides of a
forwarding hop.
And for this scenario Meng's idea "local white list + HELO" is
better, because it should work with existing MTAs. Or at least
with MTAs supporting SPF at all.
So what other applications do you have in mind for SUBMITTER ?
Is it also an alternative to PRA or Wayne's 2822-From-scope ?
MTAs can make determination what draft to use based on the
SPF scope record
So it's either spf2.0/pra or spf2.0/submit, but never both at
the same time (as in spf2.0/pra,submit), is this correct ?
Bye, Frank