On Friday 17 November 2006 21:33, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2006 15:59, K.J. Petrie wrote:
On Thursday 16 November 2006 17:18, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Thursday 16 November 2006 11:13, K.J. Petrie wrote:
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 23:43, Scott Kitterman wrote:
You also need to think about how to handle multi-recipient
messages.
Sorry, I don't see the connection. My original RPF proposal would
have had a huge problem with those, which was one of the reasons for
ditching it in favour of per/user configuration, but I can't see how
setting policies for one recipient could possibly affect or be
affected by what other recipients do.
Go look at RFC 2821 and show me how to reject the message for one
recipient and accept it for another?
See their Appendix D.1.
Yes, as I said in a later message I was thinking about something else...
Scott K
Sorry, I didn't realise. Sounds as if we've reached a sort of conclusion here.
Incidentally, I've just found a free forwarder that won't forward if the SPF
result is none! On their input! They SRS rewrite their output too. Well,
well, well, what next?
KJP
-------
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
-------
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