Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SPF vs SenderID?

Expand Messages
  • John Allen
    The jungle drums has been rumbling about SPF2, as a result I started to do some reading up on the new standard . So far I seem to have found two camps those
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      The jungle drums has been rumbling about SPF2, as a result I started to
      do some reading up on the new "standard".

      So far I seem to have found two camps those for it and those against.
      From my reading to date those against seem to "winning".
      It appears to be a Microsoft experiment, is this true? if so
      should I ignore it (at least for now)?
      The "standard" has NOT been adopted. again is this true?

      Bottom line should I be working on implementing sender-id?

      JohnA
    • Drizzt
      ... SenderID is incorrectly named SPF2 as it is not a real succesion to SPF. According to IETF RFC4406 this was defined in 2006 and the RFC and affiliated
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 27, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On 2013-01-27 09:15:03 (-0500), John Allen <john@...> wrote:
        > The jungle drums has been rumbling about SPF2, as a result I started
        > to do some reading up on the new "standard".
        >
        > So far I seem to have found two camps those for it and those against.
        > From my reading to date those against seem to "winning".
        > It appears to be a Microsoft experiment, is this true? if so
        > should I ignore it (at least for now)?
        > The "standard" has NOT been adopted. again is this true?
        >
        > Bottom line should I be working on implementing sender-id?
        >
        > JohnA
        >

        SenderID is incorrectly named SPF2 as it is not a real succesion to SPF.
        According to IETF RFC4406 this was defined in 2006 and the RFC and
        affiliated documents describe mismatches and possible problems between the
        two.

        That being said, this is not a Postfix topic and other lists may be more
        appropriate if you want to pursue. For example the amavis-users or IETF
        discussion list(s).
      • John Allen
        ... Scott K Thanks for the reply, one less thing to worry about. John A
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 27, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On 27/01/2013 9:15 AM, John Allen wrote:
          > The jungle drums has been rumbling about SPF2, as a result I started
          > to do some reading up on the new "standard".
          >
          > So far I seem to have found two camps those for it and those against.
          > From my reading to date those against seem to "winning".
          > It appears to be a Microsoft experiment, is this true? if so
          > should I ignore it (at least for now)?
          > The "standard" has NOT been adopted. again is this true?
          >
          > Bottom line should I be working on implementing sender-id?
          >
          Scott K
          Thanks for the reply, one less thing to worry about.

          John A
        • John Levine
          ... Not to cast aspersions, but the Sender-ID spec was published in 2006. Must be a big jungle. But the answer is simple: Sender-ID is dead, even Microsoft
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 27, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            >The jungle drums has been rumbling about SPF2, as a result I started to
            >do some reading up on the new "standard".

            Not to cast aspersions, but the Sender-ID spec was published in 2006.
            Must be a big jungle.

            But the answer is simple: Sender-ID is dead, even Microsoft doesn't
            use it any more. You may be confusing it with the spfbis working
            group in the IETF which is revising the SPF spec. The revisions are
            minor, removing unused warts and clarifying the language.

            Nobody's code should need to change other than perhaps deleting some
            code the handles the warts.

            R's,
            John
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.