Hi !!
OK I think I understand a bit better. I think I was confused by some of
your earlier messages. I thought you were saying "it isn't" when you
meant "it shouldn't be". Apologies for any misunderstanding.
well, i have to recognize that my english is not as good as i would
like and often i have problems to choose the correct words, maybe
this lead to some misunderstanding.
I don't agree with that summary. There are actually three options (the
third being the one you left out).
what i really want to point is that altough it may exist some
ugly way to get helo checks work with spf, it should not be the way
to go as it was not originally designed to do (always and in all
cases) helo checks. In fact i always tough that using the helo for
the null envelope sender was a workaround to check the sender when no
sender was available (in an attempt to be able to check in all
circumstances) rather that a helo check by itself. Extending this
case to all helo checks is another attempt to use spf for something
it was not originally designed, it's using a workaround for helo
checks that in turn needs other workarounds to work in all
circumstances, and at the end is not able to cover every possible
circumstance.
--
Best regards ...
It's a fine line between fishing & standing still
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Saez Padros http://www.ols.es
On-Line Services 2000 S.L. e-mail david(_at_)ols(_dot_)es
Pintor Vayreda 1 telf +34 902 50 29 75
08184 Palau-Solita i Plegamans movil +34 670 35 27 53
----------------------------------------------------------------