Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF

darxus@chaosreigns.com Fri, 07 December 2012 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <darxus@chaosreigns.com>
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 217D021F872E for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:45:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 rhuKqIo4GEEP for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:45:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from panic.chaosreigns.com (panic.chaosreigns.com [IPv6:2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe96:340b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C6A21F86B2 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:45:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by panic.chaosreigns.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3D4F12C6FC8; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:45:28 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=chaosreigns.com; s=mail; t=1354905928; bh=XbCFEtyyFZKesf+zqFL8BxGUl5v1lAgO6RG34SoQiRM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=Vzm/QKLG57XhtZXOEuKQ+XK3MjW8OCiOe0hgnVAwFaRqHxETCa4uq4xWe0gE3jcRb bntzizjWHBd0eoQP8j5YqXZ0kdwbzJHc5y4AksWVAThTvl8G4nlmyXg+qO7EhF0nOF EiTcszi60zYm8qJVDEgN1FK6lEkeGH9gI84vDT3A=
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:45:28 -0500
From: darxus@chaosreigns.com
To: asrg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20121207184528.GN12261@chaosreigns.com>
References: <20121206212116.10328.qmail@joyce.lan> <50C1A95A.5000001@pscs.co.uk> <CAFdugan=tzj+oMMSLH0ukWHK5jF7tSjbp5jx1uBauaq_YF6pxw@mail.gmail.com> <50C21EFC.4060508@pscs.co.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20121207091426.0b4ecdf0@resistor.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121207091426.0b4ecdf0@resistor.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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 18:45:29 -0000

On 12/07, SM wrote:
> 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.

I think that behavior may be in violation of an RFC.  
(By which I do not mean to imply that it doesn't happen, or that blocking
emails which do it would work out for everybody.)

-- 
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
http://www.ChaosReigns.com