spf at metro
Jul 20, 2004, 12:12 PM
Post #2 of 2
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:58:50PM -0700, Murthy Gorty wrote:
> 1. We like SenderID idea over SRS as it simplifies bounce handling especially in cases where we generate email on behalf of end-users.
> So, is the new suggested path of adoption similar to:
> -- provide SPF records
> -- provide SenderID compliant RFC822 headers (Resent-From, Sender etc. depending on the case)
> -- support SMTP MAIL SUBMITTER
SenderID is still being worked out by the workgroup if i am correct.
> If companies are adopting different paths, what is it?
We're sticking with SPF-Classic for the moment.
> 2. Are e-mail forwarding companies still using SRS schemes, even after SenderID came out? If so, what is the advantage?
To the best of my knowledge, SenderID is not 'out' yet, but still being
worked out by the workgroup. We are still doing SRS on forwarded mail.
> 3. dumb question: SenderID draft (Section 5.3, point 2) specifies
> "If the domain "$DOMAIN" does not exist, the EMail policy document cannot be obtains, and the result of validation is "fail".
> Is this also true for SPF implementations? I'm hoping it is not as this would cause problems when
> MAIL FROM: root [at] bouncehandler
> is used for handling bounced messages in current world. I can see how this would be a new feature in SenderID as it doesn't rely on MAIL FROM (atleast not until flag day).
Sorry, can't help you here...
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-help/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-help [at] v2