John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: ... >>> I would shrink 6.3 somewhat and just say that the envelope of any >>> report sent to an address found using the process in this document >>> MUST have an envelope that produces an SPF Pass. >> >>You think that's better than <> for Mail From and HELO/EHLO that Pass? > What >>about the rest of the text? Just ditch it? I'm not sure I'm >following you >>here, so I'd appreciate it if you would amplify (with a proposed 6.3 >text). > >You say to use a null bounce address and a HELO with a domain that >produces an SPF Pass. I say use whatever bounce address you want, but >be sure that it produces an SPF Pass. I don't see any practical >advantage to requiring a null bounce address. If it's not null, and >the r= address doesn't work, the reporter might get the report bounced >back, but if I were a reporter I'd prefer to know if my reports were >going into the void so I could stop sending them.
The advantage of null mail from is no bounce loops. How would you feel about SHOULD use null mail from (with EHLO/HELO SPF pass), but MUST avoid mail loops and Mail From, if not null, MUST pass SPF? Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
