In <42981506(_dot_)2741(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
I don't see the problem with adding the scope= keyword
Then let me help you to see the issue:
scope=helo => helo world, first we take CSV...
scope=mfrom => ...then we take MARID and spf2.0/mfrom...
scope=name => ...and then we are game for a scope=PRA
If the CSV folks get upset about the fact that we have had HELO
checking since long before they came up with the CSV, well, then
that's their problem. Ditto for MARID.
One parameter, and you alienate the CSV-folks while there's
just some peace between "them" and "us" enforced by Bruce, and
you also give Ted fresh ammo for his "v=spf1 is MARID is PRA"
fantasy.
I don't for a second believe that the CSV folks believe that SPF HELO
checking is equivalent, let alone better, than their system. I don't
for a second believe that they won't start ranting and raving about
how bad SPF is at the next chance. Oh wait, DougO already has.
2822-terms, no unescaped semicolon, good enough. If it "must"
be what you have try s/scope/identity/ and s/mfrom/mailfrom/
Ok, I've applied this suggestion.
-wayne