wayne wrote:
To the best of my knowledge nobody has done any
(significant?) work on the appeal.
I've sent an outline on what I think how it's supposed
to work to Julian (07-25), it's essentially a summary
of what I sent earlier to you (07-11 ?).
I've also forwarded a pointer to:
http://mid.gmane.org/E1Dw5mQ-0000tR-FL(_at_)newodin(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
(07-28), that's the result of the discussed last appeal.
Zero feedback. As far as Sender-ID suggests to use a
dummy Sender (or Resent-*) reflecting the Return-Path
for gateway operators to bypass false positives with
PRA-tests on v=spf1 it violates Internet mail Standards.
Sender and Resent-* (like Reply-To) are rarely used, and
where they are used they might be often redundant. But
there are also cases where a mail is not "resent", and a
Sender is required (more than one From), and this Sender
is different from the Return-Path. SMTP is not the only
way to transmit mail, this Sender-ID assumption is FUBAR
to begin with.
The "technically OK but still suspicious" example on the
page <http://openspf.com/esps.html> (with my browser I
can read the left part) would be incorrect for a gateway
injecting mails with their own Sender into SMTP. For a
mail without Sender it's "only" a lie.
Bye, Frank