-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Woodhouse wrote:
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.
Are you saying that (1) CSV does things that SPF can't do, or (2) CSV
without SRS isn't a proper solution to anything either, or (3) misdirected
bounces are not a problem that requires a solution?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEKFbqwL7PKlBZWjsRAr4TAKDoQXp2JmYsEuL8ByHaTJ2MjSUj5wCfRvy8
ZH0oSyBbz8mczL7wtIev7R0=
=SAok
-----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