spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: implicit MX rule FAQ

2007-05-14 16:17:54
Julian Mehnle wrote:
 
So which of the following valid host names (off the top of my
head) has an explicit MX record?

No idea, and too tired to guess.  Let the spammers figure it out
when they intend to abuse one of these addresses.

The HELO identity is separate from both MAIL FROM and RCPT TO.

We use it to construct our ersatz MAIL FROM if that's empty.
SMTP might use it to report problems to postmaster@ (I'm again
too tired to check if that's MUST or SHOULD or only between the
lines in 2821bis-03, and tomorrow I could look in 2821bis-04.) 

In any case, killing the "implicit MX" rule would be a good
idea.

I doubt it.  I like SPF better, it doesn't demand that folks
have to change their working setup before they're willing to
change it.  Apart from forwarders to some degree.

Note that I'm not saying that it would be _easy_.

Sometimes I think we're only at the beginning of the transition
to SPF (i.e. SPF PASS or FAIL).  It's not the point in time to
screw with something fundamental in SMTP again.  "Reinventing"
those source routes was as hard as it can get without breaking.

Frank


-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>