At 01:43 AM 2/24/2005 +0100, Frank Ellerman wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
>
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1599&filename=draft-schlitt-spf-classic>
I'm disappointed to see such slow progress in getting a complete workable
proposal, including email forwarders. I know this is a minor and very
fixable problem for SPF, but it seems to be a legitimate complaint from the
anti-spf folks. Quoting from the draft:
7.2 The Received-SPF header
It is RECOMMENDED that SMTP receivers record the result of SPF
processing in the message headers.
Why only RECOMMENDED? It seems like this will be a MUST for
forwarders. How else can they convey they results of their authentication
downstream? Where is there any discussion of procedures for forwarding
email, like how bounces should be handled?
I guess it's time to look again at DomainKeys. DK avoids the forwarding
problem entirely, sidestepping it with an end-to-end digital signature. I
understand that the crypto stuff adds about 10% to the average mail
processing overhead
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys
I wouldn't pay that price for just the super security, but its looking like
IP-authentication will not have a widely-accepted solution to the
forwarding problem.
-- 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