-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Mehnle [mailto:julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net]
Sent: woensdag 9 januari 2008 3:54
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Forwarder whitelisting counter-proposal: SPF "i-am="
modifier
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"?
I was thinking the same thing.
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.
Ok, I'm getting it now; and I'm liking this proposal much better than that
of Michael: anything that can be done by adding a simple DNS record is to
be preferred over implementing a new "mail-parameter" of the MAIL command,
as described in Section 3.3 (Mail Transactions) of RFC 2821.
Which brings up the old question again: why not use the already existing
ENVID (RFC 3461) for this purpose?
Of course, Scott remains right, insofar that "i-am=" is basically just a
fine-tuning to the trusted-forwarder idea. But a good idea. :)
- Mark
-------------------------------------------
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=83531484-26363f
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com