On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
I'm going to summarize what you just wrote, because I think you hit an
important point that CBV developers probably are not likely to often note:
1. If CBV system is verifying email address found in message header (From or
Sender), it you should use non-empty MAIL FROM address during CBV:
MAIL FROM:<verifier(_at_)mailhost(_dot_)(_dot_)>
RCPT TO:<address(_at_)in(_dot_)from(_dot_)header(_dot_)field>
2. If CBV system is verifying email address found in RFC2821 MAIL FROM,
it should use empty MAIL FROM address during CBV:
MAIL FROM:<>
RCPT TO:<address(_at_)in(_dot_)envelope(_dot_)from>
Is this current behavior that you think should nit (in theory) cause any
problems when MAIL FROM address is auto-generated and contains
SES, BATV or similar signature or tag scheme?
Meant to be:
Is this correct behavior that you think should not (in theory) cause any
problems when MAIL FROM address is auto-generated and contains
SES, BATV or similar signature or tag scheme?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
-------
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