RE: Re: [spf-help] SRS for Exim

> From: Meng Weng Wong
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 12:46 PM
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:42:04PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
> | > It would be good to add a mechanism to SPF that allows a
> | > domain to state
> | > that it signs its sender addresses; these addresses should not then be
> | > rewritten when forwarded and should be verified by the recipient using
> | > callouts or perhaps public key crypto (if that can be made to work).
> |
> | This is an excellent idea that Meng should seriously consider.
> | In addition,
> | since SES addresses can be much simpler than SRS addresses, we
> | would ideally
> | allow for the alternate address format in the case that the
> | domain declares
> | in it's SPF record that it SES signs all outgoing mail.  That one sounds
> | like a win-win.  Let the domain owners decide which
> | verification mechanism
> | they wish to use.
>
> i would be happy to do that.  how about a modifier like srs=decline or
> would ses=always be more appropriate?

I would personally prefer ses=always, but either would accomplish the
purpose.  Thank you for offering.  That does put the onus on SES advocates
to write up the proposal as an RFC draft, but that's fine.

--

Seth Goodman