-----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 Frank
Ellermann
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 10:32 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: spf-statement-on-SenderID
jpinkerton wrote:
| Where SenderID breaks the function of existing v=spf1
| records, domain owners will only learn of it when legitimate
| mail is not delivered.
Note the careful wording here: "mail is not delivered". As far
as the sender gets a bounce it's still a normal SMTP situation,
and if the sender deletes all bounces without ever reading them
it's his problem.
But Meng said again and again that PRA is a solution for MUAs,
and MUAs don't bounce, all they can do is delete mail directly
or indirectly. So for PRA on v=spf1 "mail is not delivered"
actually stands for "some legit mails lost".
I would add that on spf-help and the spf trouble ticket system I have seen
problems that appear to be caused by people rejecting messages using v-spf1
records for PRA. Just because Meng thinks the target market for PRA is the
MUA doesn't mean that everyone is using it this way.
PRA is not just a theory. I believe it's deployed and causing real mail to
get rejected.
I would also add that the only advice we can give people is either to add
the dummy PRA record or delete their v=spf1 records. I've been suggesting
the dummy PRA record as the lesser of the evils available to the victims of
SPF record reuse. This doens't make it a good idea, just the best one
available.
Scott Kitterman
P.S. Any mailing list that doesn't add a Sender: header will cause a PRA
failure. Yahoo Groups is one small organization that this applies to.