On Friday 06 April 2007 10:34, Seth Goodman wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote on Thursday, April 05, 2007 11:01 PM -0500:
On Thursday 05 April 2007 23:47, Seth Goodman wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote on Saturday, March 31, 2007 5:44 PM -0500:
For initial experimentation would could use an X- ESMTP keyword
without having to go through all the RFC lawyering.
IIRC, this is similar to the SUBMITTER extension proposed a long
time ago. That raised many howls at the time.
The howls were because it was tied to PRA. Not because it was an
Both were issues.
I think the biggest issue is that there has to be a motivation for a reciever
to believe something that the sender tells them during the ESMTP dialogue.
The identities associated with SPF (and even SID to a degree) and DK/DKIM can
be validated out of band (in DNS).
Submitter was just a hack to get you to go to DATA. Note that Submitter was
also the SID solution to the forwarding problem. How would a TENBOX identity
(regardless of if it's an AUTH parameter or an ESMTP keyword) be different?
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
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735