Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
Yes, 2b. exists and I'm sick of that one too. Vocal people
on the No Reuse
side just automatically believe that 2a. has been
conclusively shown, so
they just repeat the mantra, "PRA is flawed. Mail will
bounce. People
will blame SPF." It's natural to want to believe things that
support your
side, but it's silly to repeat them if you haven't checked.
This is not an MS/GOOD bad posting so don't take it that way.
Being an MTA author I am get a lot of feedback on what happens in the
market. If MS release a product that is not compatible with an RFC or other
standard, MS DO NOT fix their software. We the MTA author get told by the
client that we must 'FIX' our server to work with the broken MS
implementation because they stand no hope of getting MS to fix it.
So we have SPF, MS do PRA on the records, and maybe some mail gets bounced.
The hostmaster for the sending domain will be told to fix their records so
that it works with PRA and "Its not possible" will not be an acceptable
answer.
I suspect it's a mute point though. MS will use spf for sender-id and PRA
and the rest of us will have to comply because that's what always happens :(
Richard.