wayne wrote: > The "SHOULD check HELO" was added in 2004, not 2005. > This was changed to "RECOMMENDED" in 2005. SHOULD is the same as RECOMMENDED (2119 section 3). BTW, the first three sections together need only ten lines including two blank separator lines, that could be a record. <http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/11> => 2004-12-04 Right, it was 2004-12, not 2005. I probably confused it with the time when I read the Council log or minutes. > The DKIM proto-WG is currently going through the process of > trying to specify "What is DKIM intended for?" It's a good > idea and one that the SPF folks skipped in 2003. Yes for the former (DKIM) - no idea what you (SPF) did in 2003, I'm the one RMX-fan who ended up joining SPF because I thought that it _is_ RMX ;-) > certainly *one* of the reasons that *some* (maybe even most) > people had for promoting SPF, but certainly not the only > reason. > Other reasons include the desire by domain owners to not have > their domain name forged in the MAIL FROM and HELO domains, > whether they caused backscatter or not. Where it doesn't cause backscatter I'm not very worried (please no offers to join the "bounces-to" fraction), or in other words if I'd want S/MIME I'd know where to find it. > you could make more reliable use of whitelists and blacklists Yes, that was covered by what John said, and I agreed with it, "it makes sense for the reasons you have stated". When you say "WL or BL" those are IMO special incarnations of "reputation". Maybe the poor men's edition. > If your only goal is to get rid of backscatter, things like > SES do a much better job. AFAIK for SES you have to control all mail-outs (minimally you could get away with the MUA) and all corresponding MXs, where you'd block bogus bounces. Not realistic for many users. Bye _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf