Re: CSV BATV (CLEAR) DK IIM (MASS)
Dave Crocker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mxcomp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <2004127145143.967572@bbprime> |
> > All proposals are different in their details; the important thing is > > what they can _achieve_. Take CSV and SPF, for example. Of course the > > details vary, but in practice they do exactly the same thing. Consider: > > MAIL FROM:<[email protected]> > > From: [email protected] > > > > Precisely because SPF validates only one hop, it's achieving no more > > than CSV is. The recipient can look up how much they should trust > > 'forwarder.org' but you can't really tell if the message _really_ came > > from you. SPF uses per-message validation. It can be viewed as validating the latest-hop sending MTA, but the validation is provided by the originating sender. Hence, SPF requires route registration. In truth it is validating the originating sender, where the latest-hop MTA is merely a way into that information. SPF uses per-session validation. Its validation is based on the latest-hop sender's administration, rather than stretching back to the origin. These are not small differences. In fact their semantics, administration and use are entirely different. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... www.brandenburg.com