Scott Kitterman wrote:
From: user(_at_)churchaddress(_dot_)org
Return-Path: verify(_at_)mycompany(_dot_)com
Sender: verify(_at_)mycompany(_dot_)com
Reply-To: user(_at_)churchaddress(_dot_)org
SPF doesn't care if you put the Sender: identity in or not.
Indeed. I'd also avoid Reply-To where it's unnecessary as in
this example.
I suggested Sender: because it's the right thing to do from
an internet standards perpsective
Arguable, see below.
there are other entities that will make use of SPF records
(I'm thinking Microsoft SenderID here)
These "entities" are misguided. If you modify the example...
From: user(_at_)church(_dot_)example, bishop(_at_)church(_dot_)example
Return-Path: verify(_at_)bills(_dot_)service(_dot_)example
...then I'm lost what Bill is supposed to do. With more than
one From-address he MUST supply a single Sender, because the
Internet standards say so. The obvious solution would be...
From: user(_at_)church(_dot_)example, bishop(_at_)church(_dot_)example
Return-Path: verify(_at_)bills(_dot_)service(_dot_)example
Sender: user(_at_)church(_dot_)example
...if both user@ and bishop@ are interested in replies. But
maybe bishop@ is a busy woman, resultig in...
From: user(_at_)church(_dot_)example, bishop(_at_)church(_dot_)example
Return-Path: verify(_at_)bills(_dot_)service(_dot_)example
Sender: user(_at_)church(_dot_)example
Reply-To: user(_at_)church(_dot_)example
That is what the Internet standards say, TTBOMK. But those
misguided entities want to force non-voluntary users, here
bishop@ and user@, to partcipate in an IESG mail experiment,
where the only solution is...
From: user(_at_)church(_dot_)example, bishop(_at_)church(_dot_)example
Return-Path: verify(_at_)bills(_dot_)service(_dot_)example
Sender: verify(_at_)bills(_dot_)service(_dot_)example
Reply-To: user(_at_)church(_dot_)example
The Reply-To is optional. The Sender is incorrect as far as
mail standards are concerned, the real Sender was user(_at_)church
The mail standards are independent of SMTP, and it's nobody's
business (in the SMTP-world) how Bill's service got this
mail, UUCP, avian carrier, Fido, SMS, IM, or what else. The
real sender is user(_at_)church(_dot_)
Bill only injected it into SMTP, because in a strict sense
his service is a church-to-smtp gateway. He's not the sender
of the mail, he's only responsible for the SMTP injection.
If an openspf Web page says something else it is incorrect.
If an IESG experiment says something else it is unethical.
Bye, Frank
<http://mid.gmane.org/42B22018(_dot_)EF4(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
#########################################################
Repost, sorry if it arrived twice, something's wrong with
the <http://archives.listbox.com> server, I get a 404 for
all pages.