Re: SRS: is there a stable implementation for postfix yet?
"David Nicol" <[email protected]> Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:48:18 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.srs.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
after reading brian livingston's article, SPF and CSV don't seem to be mutually exclusive. IIRC, SPF has some validation of the HELO name described in it. The adoption path would be harsher for CSV, as SRV records need to be installed instead of just TXT records and CSV lacks the optional fine-grained control that SPF provides, unless there's more to it. Can't we all just get along? On 3/27/06, David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 17:41 -0600, David Nicol wrote: > SPF prevents 'forgery' of the reverse-path. > CSV prevents forgery of the HELO name. > In the initial phase, you get to reject some mail which blatantly > doesn't match either SPF or CSV. (In the case of SPF you also end up > rejecting valid forwarded mail when you do that, but let's gloss over > that for the moment.)