----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Problem with SID
I think we have a terminology problem.
I agree. And everyone is right. but......
Some of us, like Roger are using "forward" to mean "relay".
Others of us are using "forward" to mean "resend".
So let's get rid of the word "forward", since it is ambiguous
in this company. I'll restate my claims using "resend" and "relay",
and you can do the same for others arguments.
regardless of what you call it, it all boils down to having a transition
point of where the LMAP assertion of IP::DOMAIN association is now no
longer valid.
This is due to the persistent nature of 2821.MAILFROM.
And this is why SRS like solution is needed at transition points.
So on the one hand, the "No Problem" people will say, you need to have all
the proper components to make it work right.
But on the other hand, the "Problem" people will say not everyone has the
proper components, nor are they aware of the need to have the proper
components.
So one may ask the question if SRS is a required part of the "total spf
solution" why isn't it part of the official standards track?
The short answer?
Well, in my view, I think most technical people, especially those who write
SMTP software, are not comfortable with ideas that modify parts of the
process.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com