Julian Mehnle wrote:
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.
Right, I got that wrong. IMO forwarders going to the trouble to
publish sender policies for their various MTAs (HELOs) could as
well arrange a simple MTA naming scheme as subdomains of their
forwarder.org. That could be "obvious" enough for receivers
trying to whitelist forwarders "by name", but not interested in
all particular MTA names. It would allow a wildcard policy at
forwarder.org covering any.mta.forwarder.org.
If the names must be in different domains receivers can trigger
their white list on the unique redirect=forwarder.org in these
policies. Admittedly i-am= is clearer, more flexible, and still
simple (it took me only three mails to get it :-)
Frank
-------------------------------------------
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=83619411-f6be84
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com