At 12:14 PM 2/22/2005 +0100, Alex wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:50:43AM -0700, David MacQuigg wrote:
> >Why should a sending host also be a receiving host ?
>
> Good point. The bounce should actually go to "postmaster@<sender's
> domain>" where the sender's domain has been authenticated. Note: The
> sender might actually be another forwarder, because we can't trust any
> headers prior to that point, even if they say Authenticated.
Then why make it this difficult?
What do you think about this: http://www.spf.idimo.com/fix-2.php
At this point, I'm more focused on fundamental requirements than a
particular implementation. Get the requirements right, and we can avoid
lots of misunderstanding when we get to implementation. Is there anything
about the requirements we should simplify? Anything we should add?
-- Dave
************************************************************* *
* David MacQuigg, PhD * email: dmq at gain.com * *
* IC Design Engineer * phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. * Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************* *
-------
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