On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 11:18 -0500, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
I've always thought that the lack of viable SRS functionality has been a
major factor impeding the adaptation of SPF. Without it, SPF is just a
half-solution.
That's true -- SPF without SRS isn't a proper solution to anything.
But stop and think about what happens when/if SRS _is_ ubiquitous -- all
hosts rewrite the reverse-path to include a domain or hostname of their
own when they send a mail on, so SPF has become fairly much equivalent
to CSV.
So you've introduced all this breakage for no real benefit. You might as
well have adopted CSV instead of SPF in the first place.
No, CSV (HELO identity) often has many ids to one MFROM id. And in the
case of virtual domains, there can be many MFROM ids to one HELO id.
They are different namespaces.
Furthermore, with SPF, you can:
a) not use SRS for forwarding (why should I forward to lusers who
check SPF but can't do it right? I understand that it is different for
a domain whose business is forwarding.)
b) just publish SPF records for your HELO domains and ignore MFROM.
Presto - CSV with a slightly uglier syntax, but much wider implementation.
SPF is arguably uglier, but does everything CSV does and lots more.
It is entirely opt-in with optional features - so if you don't like parts of
it, don't use them.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
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