On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Marc Sherman wrote: > Marilyn Davis wrote: > > > > Yes. Another point, however, is that, for your bank, you might want > > to give (just) them your unforwarded email address, or an address > > that forwards from a system does rely on SPF, ... or you'll get phish > > unless it is caught via some other mechanism. It's something to > > suggest to customers who get phish forwarded to them. > > > > So, unless someone has something specific to and technically valid > > against these particular observations, SPF seems useful enough to not > > deserve the treatment it gets here. > > I haven't analyzed your new proposal in detail yet, so I can't comment > specifically on it's merits. I just want to point out that you (and to > a lesser extent, Steve Lamb) are doing the same thing here that you did > when we had the long thread on C/R systems earlier this year; you're > innovating a new technique based partially on an old, discredited one, > and then using your new technique to argue the merits of the old one.
Thank you. I'll try to be more careful about that. Marilyn -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
