Friday, November 19, 2004, 6:10:46 PM, Vivien wrote:
VM> Dave, myself, and others (including, we speculate, most of the general
VM> public out there) are defining 'authorized' as 'giving <some person> an
VM> email account at <some domain>'. Thus, if I have a
vivienm(_at_)somedomain(_dot_)net
VM> address, I am implicitly authorized to use that address by that definition.
VM> Given current technology, everybody else can pretty much use it too, but
VM> hey...
I can see that your definition is different to mine.
Please note in my comments below that the presence or absence
of SPF usage makes no change to the outcome for your examples.
Think about how you are defining 'general public' and geographical
location. All the public ISP's that I use (currently 10) allow
pop3 collection of mail from any IP via authorisation, then all
will /only/ allow posting from within their own network, the
majority also /require/ telephone callerID before posting is
enabled.
Then think about private ISP's, we have three for DSL and some spares
for roaming. All let us use whatever headers we want but posts can
only be made via their own telecom unless we use our own external
servers (which we do).
In my country UK from the above you will see that IME all ISP
domain addresses are only available to the general public from inside
the ISP network via their telecom provider AUTH SMTP is not available.
Also you may conclude that it is normal for all general public users to
know that they are not able to use their ISP domain address for
posting outside their ISP, unless they use the webinterface provided.
If they need to use a kiosk they will use webinterface or someone like
hotmail.
Clearly your comments are a different hue because your part of the
world has different ISP enforced rules.
Shame