On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
In Gathman-SPF, SPF is applied by default after a forwarder whitelist has
exempted part of the mailstream. No forwarder whitelist means no rejecting
solely due to SPF fail. In this protocol, almost everyone can use -all
senderside, but it is foolish for an mail admin who doesn't know his users
well (such as in large ISPs) to deploy receiverside SPF checking that does
more than header tagging.
In Vessely-SPF, SPF is to be applied literally, with SPF fail being binding.
In this protocol, only two groups are entitled to actually use -all
senderside: SES/BATV users with a magic DNS server referenced in exists, and
people who are desperate enough to stop backscatter that they will willingly
risk rejected forwards. But receiver admins are assured that they can and
should arm reject-on-fail for users they don't know much about.
V-SPF is a Receiver Policy helpfully provided by the Sender (RPS). SPFv1,
on the other hand, is a Sender Policy Framework. I see big technical
problems with V-SPF/RPS due the fact that senders can't possibly know
all the implementation details and company policies of all potential
receivers. And I see legal problems: what if a receiver doesn't execute the
V-SPF/RPS policy exactly?
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------------------------------------------
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