If the SPF council starts sending out idiotic messages like this then it is
finished. There is no legal or moral authority behind the demand.
The objective here is to stop spam. The world does not care about your
piffling and irrelevant vendetta against Microsoft.
The Apache lawyer who objected to the Sender-Id license agreed to the exact
same term in the W3C patent negotiations, he seems to have decided to use
MARID and the IETF as an opportunity to reopen the debate in the IETF and go
for more.
Its not just engineers who get wedged on their own pet projects.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of
terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:38 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Abusing SPF record for PRA testing
Perhaps a representative from the SPF council should contact
postmaster(_at_)algoritmnt(_dot_)ru indicating that PRA interpreting SPF
records is unacceptable, with the illustration of this
particular failure as being why.
A proposed response that the SPF council rep could use follows:
To Whom It May Concern
We have been made aware that you are using PRA to reject
email. This in itself is reasonable if the PRA technology is
suitable for you, however, PRA should only use PRA records.
PRA should *not* be set to read SPF records and apply the PRA
algorithm, as the method of PRA and SPF are different and
require different sender records in many cases.
For example, an email was sent to your domain and your server
responded by saying "550 5.7.0 Caller-ID for the message does
not match" because the "From:" domain was not the senders
domain and the domain owner publishes ~all This was a false
positive as the email was not forged <<<perhaps more details
on what it was could be put here>>>
The domain owners published SPF policy is applicable to and
should only be used against RFC 2821 Mail-From header (which
is what SPF does). The domain owners published SPF policy is
NOT applicable to nor should be used against RFC 2822 from
headers (which is what PRA does).
Please set your PRA implementation to interpret PRA against
PRA records only in order to prevent future false positives
and incorrect email rejection.
You may also be well advised to implement SPF checks to
maximize protection, since SPF has a much larger
deployment/published base then PRA and will offer better
protection from forgery in the foreseeable future.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of
Roger Moser
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 7:13 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Abusing SPF record for PRA testing
Just for your information:
mail.algoritmnt.ru abuses the SPF record to test the PRA
and rejected
a mail from my server by saying "550 5.7.0 Caller-ID for
the message
does not match" because the "From:" domain was not my domain and the
domain owner
publishes "~all". Only after I added a Sender header with my
domain, it has
been accepted.
Roger
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription, please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily
deactivate your subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf->
discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com