-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Radu Hociung wrote:
Usually the burden of proof of validity of assertions is the duty of the
proponents and supporters of those assertions.
The assertion that is made is that HELO should be checked in addition to
checking MAIL FROM in all cases. It is this assertion that needs to be
proven.
This is a change introduced in the new draft, and as such it differs
from current practice.
In my view, it is the proponent's duty to offer proof of validity.
The assertion that is being made by the specification is that separate HELO
checking is useful. I have proven this assertion through the last two
messages of mine:
* Message-Id: <200505100209(_dot_)44743(_dot_)bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net>[1]
* Message-Id: <200505100216(_dot_)18485(_dot_)bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net>[2]
q.e.d.
You are asserting that HELO checking bears significant risks that outweigh
its benefits. So now it's your turn to prove these assertions of yours.
References:
1.
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200505/0258.html
2.
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200505/0259.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCf/85wL7PKlBZWjsRAiB0AKDentzVP3cToDHbJOIFLBkKGNNOtgCgnJ1T
9mNqknAhdY1nOm6AnJBeQCo=
=GV66
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----