Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 07 December 2012 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A72E21F86C3 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:39:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H+jYne2LjyIh for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C0C21F86B2 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qB7IdHQE005166 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:39:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1354905561; bh=kEzKcO9jAxzPNMTzq7F2dQAPhV0/Dk1P4AfZKrwlWJg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=u+3XHm8dHe78pBwmo4J4hZyLi7jaxa6IhJoXF6rEFgXEwzZR4LfSoxgvf6YIlpTMq QxtcX/4gwUNlJOLQus8l3RPyiEAzad2AE3JiYuluOpmg65+sLFziN6xdqxTbx/IUL6 c6gB3reA1I26v7zonkfEKXyF23lSv/IrL25lpbKs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1354905561; i=@resistor.net; bh=kEzKcO9jAxzPNMTzq7F2dQAPhV0/Dk1P4AfZKrwlWJg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=bqSUxKEJaUM09IzuMIOhNipbvd/9ojR3viUzMhQV8pRfXj3kIKpHZswFv+VGDd7vv gHd7O/gnZqomw85UmR2Hz4EcaKSKxiHZIj81EYJNTcov5aM/yzMNG3NgVTZ2heHbE7 gxukCo+ge3CP2iM8JRWnhZ5eTogSj4+MS4UsYE/Q=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121207091426.0b4ecdf0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:16:17 -0800
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <50C21EFC.4060508@pscs.co.uk>
References: <20121206212116.10328.qmail@joyce.lan> <50C1A95A.5000001@pscs.co.uk> <CAFdugan=tzj+oMMSLH0ukWHK5jF7tSjbp5jx1uBauaq_YF6pxw@mail.gmail.com> <50C21EFC.4060508@pscs.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 18:39:23 -0000

Hi Paul,
At 08:53 07-12-2012, Paul Smith wrote:
>Yes, the MX is for receiving mail only, according to the SMTP 
>standard, BUT if you work on the assumption that you have to be able 
>to reply to the sender (which is a common

Actually no, or else people would not be using noreply@example.

Regards,
-sm