/cOn Wed, 2005-06-29 at 19:31 +0200, Beat Rubischon wrote: > Hello! > > Am 28.06.05 schrieb Daniel Lorch: > > > > Do you have more information? > > This documents were very short and summarized Sender-ID very well: > > ... > > Thanks for the links.
Indeed nice M$-marketing.
> > And here is the part which is
> > incompatible with "Classic SPF". The records are the same, but while
> > "Classic SPF" ONLY used them to check the envelope from ("Return-Path"),
> > Sender ID uses the SAME records to check for "From".
>
> I see. Classic mailsetups as I use for my private emails will
> work. My SPF-record should be working for both aproaches.
If you have any form of forwarding you will have to do SRS to be SPF
compliant and indeed this is a hassle.
> Complex mailsetups like the one from my employer "ethz.ch" will
> never ever be compatible with one or both solutions. A wildcard
> entry will be the solution if Hotmail will continue to follow
> Sender-Id...
Assuming that the ethz is letting many people simply send outbound mail
through their own servers is the current situation. You might want to
move away from that and let people use a relay, with smtp auth and ssl
as submission at the ethz to do so. This has another advantage, nobody
can fake messages being sent as a prof any more ;)
This is compatible with SPF. Note I am not saying that it is compatible
with the Sender-ID stuff...
Greets,
Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
