Don,
"I detect emphatic agreement on this thread." - No small achievement
with this group. ;-)
Best,
Alan
At 04:54 PM 1/9/2009, you wrote:
At 3:16 PM -0500 1/9/09, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>On Friday 09 January 2009 15:03, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > AFAIK, no. There are people that will argue layer violations, but I'm
>> > completely unaware of any real situations where it would be problematic.
>>
>> RFC4408 explicitly says to apply SPF to HELO for empty MAIL FROM.
>> I guess the leap here is to apply it to HELO for all MAIL FROMs.
>
>It's not much of a leap. It's recommended:
>
>http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408#helo-ident
>
>"It is RECOMMENDED that SPF clients not only check the "MAIL FROM"
identity,
>but also separately check the "HELO" identity by applying the check_host()
>function (Section 4) to the "HELO" identity as the <sender>."
>
>We're coming up on the third anniversary of RFC 4408. I think
it's reasonable
>to assume that using an SPF record for HELO should not be a suprise. I'm
>unaware of it ever causing an actual problem.
>
>Scott K
I detect emphatic agreement on this thread. I will work on the text/patches
in question and present it to this list this weekend.
(However, If anyone beats me to it, I will _not_ be offended. ;-> )
-dgl-
-------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------
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