Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPF? (was: Anti-spam laws do work, FYI. There's proof.)

["Alan DeKok" <aland at ox.org>]

Dave Crocker <dcrocker at brandenburg.com> wrote:
> AD>   No.  It assumes that email addresses are bound to domains, and that
> AD> people sending email have IP addresses on the net.  Both assumptions
> AD> are reasonable.
> 
> No, it mandates that a PATH -- i.e., a SEQUENCE of IP addresses -- is
> bound to a sender/recipient pair.

  Maybe I'm missing something.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt

  Doesn't even mention RCPT TO.  Therefore, SPF cannot bind anything to
an email sender/recipient pair (referring to people/accounts, not
domains).

> That is quite different form what you said.

  My statement was true, even in your re-definition of SPF.  It just
wasn't complete in that re-definition.

  I'm not sure your re-definition of SPF is true.

  Alan DeKok.


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg