Douglas Otis <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/23/12 5:26 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>> 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. >> Right, and the disadvantage is no feedback if it's bouncing. >> >>> 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? >> Make it MAY use null bounce address and we have a deal. And whether >> or not it's null, it MUST pass SPF. >Dear John, > >It would be a bad practice to require a protocol that defeats DNS/API >caching by incorporating local-part macros that are of no value. >Macros >able to target a domain with a significant number of recipient >generated >transactions per message where the victim may not be evident within any > >referenced record or message. Is MUST not use local-part macros an >ingredient of this mustard? No. This is no different than any other use of SPF. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
