-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dick St.Peters wrote:
As I see it, the SPF draft defines two scopes, an mfrom scope and a helo
scope and says to switch to the helo scope if the mfrom is empty.
According to the SPF spec, the checking of the MAIL FROM identity implies
(requires) the checking of the HELO identity in certain cases. You can't
call that "switching scopes" because the HELO identity then is still being
evaluated in the context of MAIL FROM checking. This implicit use of the
HELO identity is NOT an independent HELO check (which is also allowed by
the SPF spec).
The SenderID core draft incorporates the SPF mfrom scope by explicit
reference, but I do not see that as including the switch to a helo scope.
Wayne doesn't agree with that view, and the SenderID authors aren't
around or aren't speaking up. However, the SenderID draft explicitly
allows for additional scopes and even gives some requirements they must
meet.
We don't need the Sender-ID people around to see that Sender-ID is defined
(although probably unvoluntarily) to use the HELO identity for the "mfrom"
scope. :-)
Anyway, where is this sub-thread going?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDxXDawL7PKlBZWjsRAiWNAKCWj35KhjKbUjxdf4Rrr3kP79fQYQCg21Ib
IyQbE6QsilFQQPHQqDPDKX0=
=BOwL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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