In
<17349(_dot_)5481(_dot_)442015(_dot_)416614(_at_)saint(_dot_)heaven(_dot_)net>
"Dick St.Peters" <stpeters(_at_)NetHeaven(_dot_)com> writes:
I consider that separating scopes is a big advantage of the SenderID
approach. Imagining that mfrom and helo scopes can be described by a
single SPF policy is ludicrous IMO.
The "mfrom" scope in SenderID appears to be almost identical to to
SPFv1 records. It describes both the 2821.MAILFROM and 2821.HELO
identities, just like SPFv1. The actual differences between
spf2.0/mfrom and v=spf1 is, at best, not clear. There appears to be
no reasons or justification given for any differences.
So, if you think combining the "mfrom and helo" scopes is ludicrous,
why do you think that SenderID's scopes are so good?
SenderID's spf2.0 records allow domains to specify what scope(s) their
SPF records cover. If you don't want your MFROM scope used for PRA, you
can say so. Is there anybody who thinks this is not a big advantage?
I think it is nice that you can separate the PRA from the MFROM. I
don't think, as it is designed, is that big of an advantage. The
SenderID syntax requires lots of duplicate information to define two
different scopes that are very similar, but not identical. I think it
could have been designed *MUCH* better, but it was a bad hack slipped
in under Microsoft's nose at the very end of MARID. I don't think
MarkL could have done a better job without Microsoft noticing and
objecting, but that doesn't change much.
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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