On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Terry Fielder wrote:
I have a hunch that David Woodhouse does not know the difference between
RFC2821 and 2822.
Don't take it personally, but I have a hunch that some may not have heard
warning by Wayne and Greg yesterday.
Not only that but I have a hunch that in spite of 150+ messages in the last
couple days, not one of the people who have been so much involved in the
forwarding/redirection debate has seriously changed his mind (or even
learned something entirely new), while those who have not been active on
it may now be even more confused then they were before it all began.
Of course it would be good to remember that back in 2003 (?) when Meng
started the list he did it so he could push SRS with what was then his
version of DMP because he thought the only way DMP/RMX technology could
be used is if forwarding issue is solved. Well, it seems we still have
the same problem on our hands....
The only thing I can see coming as a result of the last couple days is
that there appears to be certain consensus that forwarding issue needs
to be better documented/emphasized/explained on the future SPF website
and that it would be good if proposed solutions/workarounds were also
documented (as voluntary solutions for those who consider it crucial)
on the same or nearby place on SPF site. From myself, I'd add that
the these solutions should be further classified by:
1. solutions to be implemented by mail senders (SES, BATV)
2. solutions that can be implemented by forwarders (SRS)
3. solutions that can be implemented by receivers (trusted forwarder list,
per-user whitelist for forwarders, PAC*, etc).
* - PAC (path after crypto) is what I'm for now calling SPF authentication
of hostname that added RFC2822 signature that I proposed in part 6 of
http://www.metasignatures.org/path_and_cryptographic_authentication.htm
---
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net