On 1/23/12 5:26 PM, John Levine wrote:
You say to use a null bounce address and a HELO with a domain that
produces an SPF Pass. I say use whatever bounce address you want, but
be sure that it produces an SPF Pass. I don't see any practical
advantage to requiring a null bounce address. If it's not null, and
the r= address doesn't work, the reporter might get the report bounced
back, but if I were a reporter I'd prefer to know if my reports were
going into the void so I could stop sending them.
The advantage of null mail from is no bounce loops.
Right, and the disadvantage is no feedback if it's bouncing.
How would you feel about SHOULD use null mail from (with EHLO/HELO SPF pass),
but
MUST avoid mail loops and Mail From, if not null, MUST pass SPF?
Make it MAY use null bounce address and we have a deal. And whether
or not it's null, it MUST pass SPF.
Dear John,
It would be a bad practice to require a protocol that defeats DNS/API
caching by incorporating local-part macros that are of no value. Macros
able to target a domain with a significant number of recipient generated
transactions per message where the victim may not be evident within any
referenced record or message. Is MUST not use local-part macros an
ingredient of this mustard?
Regards,
Douglas Otis
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
