spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Sender ID

2006-02-24 14:03:26
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Kelly wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
What you did NOT find in that message was a Sender header field.  If it
had had something like Sender: spf-help(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com, 
then SID would
have used that instead of Frank's From: and all would be well.  The
problem with this approach is that there is no RFC that mandates the
Sender be there in this instance (there is a MAY, but no MUST), so at
this point, Listbox has done nothing wrong.  Frank has done nothing
wrong.

Technically I understand what you are saying, and I understand the
difference between MAY vs. MUST.

RFCs are nice and all, but the world needs more than RFCs to operate
smoothly.  Pragmatism is needed, and it seems to me that any pragmatic
list manager who cares about getting the mail thru can do some extra
work, change his configuration, and start adding the headers necessary
to make his list SID compliant, even though the RFC does not say he
MUST do it.

You could ask the listbox.com people to change their software to add 
"Sender:" headers in order to make it Sender ID compliant.  Such a request 
might even work.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD/3R+wL7PKlBZWjsRAtQkAKCbMq3RCQx3AsZuqkOPsAZebEif1wCeKu6J
Zi9POiHM+34NSvM2sOKZK/E=
=YVhI
-----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