On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 07:08:30AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday 03 November 2006 05:33, Julian Mehnle wrote:
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.
The problem is that the 'They' that could do that is vodafone, not my
customer. Unless I can figure a way to do that with a Blackberry, I'm afraid
I'm going to have to recommend that he not publish SPF records.
So, are you sure your customer really mean SPF and not SenderID? Ask
him what he's trying to protect. His address or Vodafone's.
I think there is much confusion over the two since both use a record
format called 'SPF'.
--
:: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118
:: www.e-dialog.com
-------
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/?list_id=735