On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:11:49 -0500, Michael Hammer wrote:
> There was nothing about the scenarios that involved pretending.
> Merely spontaneous usage.
Au contrare.... you were pretending to be sending mail from a
domain that did not authorize the sending of email from where you
were at.
First of all, I was "pretending" nothing. Please re-read the scenario I
described.
Second of all, my point was that requiring pre-registration creates new and
deleterious effects, whereas you are saying that the imposition of this new
requirement is self-justifying.
> Now, how is this scenario unreasonable and/or how can spf work
> "correctly" in this real-world situation.
I don't know. SMTP auth, webmail, a crackberry....
SMTP Auth is irrelevant to the scenario.
As for the others, you are taking the scenarios I described and saying that the
way to fix things is not use them. And therein lies the philosophical problem
with path registration schemes: they are vastly Procrustean and far too willing
to toss our entirely reasonable and appropriate usage scenarios.
I would argue that spf worked absolutely correctly. Your thesis
runs something like this..... I choose to use a hammer for driving
in a screw.
Please re-read the scenarios I described. They are quite representative of
entirely reasonable and real real-world scenarios. There is no mismatch of the
type you describe.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
www.brandenburg.com