From: alan [mailto:spfdiscuss(_at_)alandoherty(_dot_)net]
... just one word of advice don't be like 90% of MTA admins and
completely disregard the mandatory need for SPF for your EHLO/HELO
greeting ID.
They've probably been disregarding it, because there is NO such mandatory
need. From RFC 4408:
2.1. The HELO Identity
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>.
if you do you will seem to any of us compliance extremists just to be
another spambot as no other SPF checks are considered trusted if
HELO/EHLO
doesn't pass.
That's an utterly ignorant statement. For all the (loud) grandstanding
you've been doing for the last few days, perhaps you ought to do well and
get your own affairs in order first.
And for those that don't know Mark was a major contributor to RFC 4408 and
the two years of draft specs that preceded it. Perhaps we could take this
as the final word in this thread?
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