In
<17349(_dot_)26912(_dot_)151381(_dot_)606541(_at_)saint(_dot_)heaven(_dot_)net>
"Dick St.Peters" <stpeters(_at_)NetHeaven(_dot_)com> writes:
I would say the SenderID core draft says that the "mfrom" scope
details are defined in the SPF draft. The SPF draft does that, and it
also says if the mfrom scope address is missing switch to the helo
scope. I don't view that switch as part of the mfrom scope referred
to by the SenderID draft. I view it as defining a new scope not
mentioned in the SenderID draft.
No, the SPF spec, explicitly says when defining the MAIL FROM
identity in section 2.2 with:
[...] 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).
Almost identical wording existed in the marid-mailfrom draft, which
previously was part of the canonical definition of SenderID.
Feel free to try and get a clarification out of any of of the SenderID
folks. I would be *very* surprised if you received any response at
all. SenderID appears to be little more than a marketing buzzword for
most of their supporters, with very little interest in technical details.
-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