> SRS only has the advantage of being simpler (don't have to test whether
mail is forwarded). But it sure is ugly. I sometimes wish SRS had
a rule that the original domain can be ommited when it is the same as
the sending domain. Of course, I can *make* it have that rule, since
only my MTA will evaluate it. But it was valuable to have SRS
interoperable between implementations, and nice to be able for other
MTAs to extract the original sender for whitelisting purposes. OTOH,
there is
no RFC for SRS yet - so I could experiment with omitting the original
domain when redundant. Maybe it will get added when we get around to
making SRS an RFC.
I have a question about BATV. (Yes, this about SPF, but you knows would
know)
Quite a number of email servers use callbacks (Like exim) so BATV breaks
callsbacks. So I was thinking only reject (after data) is its a bounce and
it
actually contains data.
so
MAIL FROM: <>
RCPT TO: user(_at_)yourdomain(_dot_)com
QUIT
callback works (as its a call back and it had no data)
and
MAIL FROM: <>
RCPT TO: user(_at_)yourdomain(_dot_)com
DATA
.
(give reject as the rcpt is from <> AND its sent directly to a username AND
there is data_
This would fix calls backs (the only problem I see at the moment with
BATV ). What do people think?
Thanks
Craig
-------
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