-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Here is another v=spf1/PRA incompatibility scenario I ran across today
with one of my customers:
Return-Path: <localpart(_at_)mobileemail(_dot_)vodafone(_dot_)net>
...
Reply-To: username(_at_)example(_dot_)com
From: "John Doe" < username(_at_)example(_dot_)com>
Apparently Vodafone (in the UK) use their own return path for Blackberry
e-mails. This would be no problem for SPF, but creates a case where the
PRA and Mail From records for example.com need to be different.
Not really. They could easily add a "Sender:
(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_at_)mobileemail(_dot_)vodafone(_dot_)net"
header. And I think they should.
If it wasn't for the Resent-* headers, Sender ID really wouldn't be such a
bad idea. 2822.From+2822.Sender really SHOULD converge with 2821.MFROM in
the long term. The problem (besides the Resent-* stuff) is just that it
doesn't now, and that the current situation is legitimate according to the
current standards.
So Sender ID coming along and enforcing it is a problem. It might not be
if participation was optional (like with SPF, which also sometimes breaks
compatibility with existing standards but is entirely opt-in). But due to
the v=spf1/pra abuse, it isn't.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFSxr2wL7PKlBZWjsRAp19AKDlNcAOIQPtBsbxetMhe2VRRmaccQCeJ8EB
jHZitYblWw0BcAUChtRvPCw=
=yTWx
-----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