-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Don't both these proposals amount to "forwarders" saying "trust me I'm
a forwarder - you can just skip rejecting SPF Fail mail from me"?
No, you got both Michael and me wrong. Each of our proposals is merely
trying to establish a solid identity that receivers can actually PUT on
their forwarder whitelist. Of course receivers still have to explicitly
do that themselves.
With "i-am=", I can put "HELO=forwarder.org" on my whitelist, even if the
forwarder doesn't use that identity directly in their HELOs. Currently I
cannot do that, but I'd rather have to list all their individual HELOs
(which are bound to change over time).
"i-am=" is merely an out-of-band reformulation of Michael's in-band (SMTP
extension) idea for transmitting an additional identity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHhEIiwL7PKlBZWjsRAnHKAKCvhlWRdYBNr5O3Tk70iYkm+lW1wACghjPd
iyf1+B+84xlPj8hR3UIrwNo=
=9jT0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=83498759-dfe0e0
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com