On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:09:53 +0200 Alex van den Bogaerdt
<alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 04:51:12PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
But it clearly was not
Clearly it isn't as clear as you say it is.
I repeat:
SPF does not do anything with headers, with return-path being
the one and only possible exception.
If an implementation does do anything else with headers, it is doing
so because is doesn't know any better. And that is because there is
this other protocol, not SPF, which does look at headers.
The user who asked the question has likely never before
heard of SenderID. Apart from being rude it makes no
sense to send users to "SenderID help" (if that exists)
if their problem is a broken SPF implementation.
1: It is not a broken SPF implementation. It is a broken SenderID
implementation.
Not everything that misuses SPF records is SenderID. There is a Mozilla
Thunderbird plugin that does SPF checks against From that predates the
existance of SenderID.
Scott K
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com