Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only the receiver of an email has any right to decide how their spam
filter is going to work.
Sure, but the intent of the sender, and/or owner of the SPF record
matters, too. Common consent makes the net work. Otherwise, people
could send HTTP
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank Ellermann
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:10 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in
conflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
MARID[EMAIL
Behalf Of Andrew Newton
If this is the source of the conflict, then BOTH experiments should
not use the v=spf1 records.
Which would at the same time provide an opportunity to address the one
part of SPF/Sender-ID that does give me significant concern, the
exclusive appropriation of the TXT
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[PHB brainstorms about a new protocol...]
The main objection to prefixed records is that they do not work with
wildcards. This is actually a failure of imagination rather than fact.
It is quite possible to develop a
All SPF does is provide a mechanism whereby sending parties can
describe their outgoing edge mail servers. The recipient has the
absolute right to interpret that data in any way they see
fit. That is
the entire point of a spam filtering scheme.
You have long advocated this
There are several known conflicts, as outlined in the appeal,
and they don't begin with the sender intends.
You appear to refer to:
http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=ietfi=200508250045.27
704.julian%40mehnle.net
* Many mailing lists rewrite the MAIL FROM identity when
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All SPF does is provide a mechanism whereby sending parties can
describe their outgoing edge mail servers. The recipient has the
absolute right to interpret that data in any way they see
fit. That is
the entire
] On
Behalf Of Julian Mehnle
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 5:21 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org; MARID
Subject: Re: Appeal: Publication of
draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflictwith referenced
draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
As has recently been pointed out on the namedroppers list, the dual
track RR and TXT approach does not work. It leads to ambiguities when
the records do not match - which they will inevitably dur to the DNS
protocol.
Actually what has been
