-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Seth Goodman wrote:
The case that can defeat this scheme is a forwarder munging a message
body but keeping the original return-path. The same behavior would
also defeat DKIM for exactly the same reason, so I think most people
would accept this.
This is what I have been talking about. Saying that DKIM breaks in the
same cases doesn't make it any better. DKIM -- just like SPF -- isn't the
authority on what breakage people will accept.
This is not to say that message munging by forwarders is an acceptable
practice. But just like alias-style forwarding, it isn't going to go away
anytime soon and we thus need to deal with it (i.e. try to get it phased
out).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFuMxYwL7PKlBZWjsRAtKjAKCk18RWJFLLsLi2j1GPky8LBybtOACgrZ7f
dChC9vuCr/iAQR8bboReP9I=
=pJ5o
-----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/?list_id=735