In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0505090119450(_dot_)26914(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
--
Without explicit approval of record owner, checking other identities
against v=spf1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED, because there are cases
(e.g. Section 9.3) that are known to give incorrect results."
--
I like that. Along with the changes suggested by Julian (and others),
it now reads:
Without explicit approval of record owner, checking other
identities against SPF version 1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED
because there are cases that are known to give incorrect
results. For example, most mailing lists rewrite the "MAIL
FROM" identity (see <xref target="mailing-lists"/>), but
some do not change any other identities in the message. The
scenario described in <xref target="forwarding"/>.1.2 is
another example.
Note that this sentence has evolved into a separate paragraph. While
I am strongly resisting increasing the size of the draft, I think this
is worth while.
Also is it possible to change the name of the spf check_host() function
argument from <sender> to <address> or some other neutral word. It
creates less confusion because for identities like "HELO" its not
really sender but just identity address and <domain> is domain portion
of that address.
Hmmm... isn't the HELO domain the sending MTA? Doesn't that qualify
as a sender?
-wayne