-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart D. Gathman [mailto:stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com]
Sent: maandag 19 september 2005 19:39
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Anyone Got an Explanation?
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
Thus spoke Wayne (2.2 MAIL FROM identity):
| When the reverse-path is null, this document defines the
| "MAIL FROM" identity to be the mailbox composed of the
| localpart "postmaster" and the "HELO" identity (which may
| or may not have been checked separately before).
Yeah, I knew that. I was asking about the *converse*. Is it
true that:
When the MAIL FROM identity is composed of the localpart
"postmaster"and the HELO identity, then the reverse-path is null.
A quick comment for newbies in the field...
It should always be understood, that the postmaster(_at_)HELO identity used in
case of MAIL FROM: <> is only 'fictitious', in the sense that the SPF
client uses this address, internally, to perform SPF queries on. There
does not, and will not ever be caused to, exist an actual postmaster(_at_)HELO
envelope-from address during any stage of delivery as the result of MAIL
FROM: <> in SPF checking.
So, a postmaster(_at_)HELO address in MAIL FROM, found anywhere outside the SPF
client engine, is never the result of any SPF substituting.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com