-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of
Julian Mehnle
Sent: donderdag 2 juni 2005 23:46
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Request for Input on the meaning of "pass".
Mark wrote:
Also, considering the above, I would like to point out,
that finding a mechanism by which the MTA can tell the receiver
it is patched against cross-user forgery, is in itself no sinecure.
Because the receiver would have to be able to make the determination
whether such mechanism itself were authentic.
Such a mechanism, if it was part of the SPF record, would be
authentic by definition because it would be under the direct control
of the domain owner (who controls the SPF record).
The record, for sure, would be 'authentic'; the object of that record,
however, would not be; which is to say, "op=MTA is trusted to handle only
my domain" may be an authentic record, but the domain owner cannot speak
for the MTA in that fashion. Only the MTA itself could provide such a
mechanism. And, as I said, since the method of communicating this to the
receiver would itself require authentication, doing so would hardly be
trivial. And be a far cry from the current SPF scope of operation.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx