-----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 Greg
Connor
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:25 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Architectural issues with the SPF
specification
... What I really want is for as many people to do
HELO checking as possible, and to make it as easy as possible. I guess the
reason I don't want to make it 'required' or a 'dependency' is that I'm
anticipating there might be a backlash from the greybeards at ietf
or other
fundamentalists.
Perhaps we can state it as "SHOULD check HELO using SPF" - it makes the
recommendation pretty clear but leaves the door open to those who
can't check
HELO or won't. Something that causes software vendors to do the
right thing
(such as shipping with the HELO check defaulted to ON) but doesn't cause
objections from the peanut gallery would be ideal.
How about "SHOULD check HELO using SPF unless HELO has already been
validated by other means"? I'm thinking CSV. That ought to stifle some of
the objections and lay the foundation for a more unified approach in the
future.
Scott Kitterman