Re: SRS: is there a stable implementation for postfix yet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Woodhouse wrote:
> That's true -- SPF without SRS isn't a proper solution to anything.
>
> But stop and think about what happens when/if SRS _is_ ubiquitous -- all
> hosts rewrite the reverse-path to include a domain or hostname of their
> own when they send a mail on, so SPF has become fairly much equivalent
> to CSV.
>
> So you've introduced all this breakage for no real benefit. You might as
> well have adopted CSV instead of SPF in the first place.

Are you saying that (1) CSV does things that SPF can't do, or (2) CSV 
without SRS isn't a proper solution to anything either, or (3) misdirected 
bounces are not a problem that requires a solution?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEKFbqwL7PKlBZWjsRAr4TAKDoQXp2JmYsEuL8ByHaTJ2MjSUj5wCfRvy8
ZH0oSyBbz8mczL7wtIev7R0=
=SAok
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----