spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats)

2005-07-05 11:30:23

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, David Woodhouse wrote:

Not at all. The problem I pointed out is that for SPF to be viable you
need everyone _else_ to implement SRS; even those who are not
participating in SPF and who think it is unwise.

The second statement is patently false.  If you don't want to deal
with your forwarding mess, simply don't check SPF, or don't
reject on fail.  End of story.  You can still publish SPF, SPF
still works great for those who are fully participating.

Right, but there are issues on all sides that can't be ignored.   I learn
more with you, but we all need to be opened minded about all of this.

If SRS is important for SPF near or "complete" solution, then they should be
a consideration to make it official, not necessarily required part of SPF,
but submitted as a IETF draft in the same way SUBMITTER draft is used for
SENDERID/PRA draft.

Anyway, where can I get the "official" SRS specification so I can take
another look at it?

I am so resistance to anything that has to deal with changing return paths,
so I don't know I will actually implement it,  but I want to take another
look.

Thanks

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com