Re: Re: Re: SPF and Google Groups (sending on behalf of)

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:09:53 +0200 Alex van den Bogaerdt 
<alex <at> ergens.op.het.net> wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 04:51:12PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>
>> But it clearly was not
>
>Clearly it isn't as clear as you say it is.
>
>I repeat:
>
>SPF does not do anything with headers, with return-path being
>the one and only possible exception.
>
>If an implementation does do anything else with headers, it is doing
>so because is doesn't know any better.  And that is because there is
>this other protocol, not SPF, which does look at headers.
>
>> The user who asked the question has likely never before
>> heard of SenderID.  Apart from being rude it makes no
>> sense to send users to "SenderID help" (if that exists)
>> if their problem is a broken SPF implementation.
>
>1: It is not a broken SPF implementation. It is a broken SenderID
>implementation.
>

Not everything that misuses SPF records is SenderID.  There is a Mozilla 
Thunderbird plugin that does SPF checks against From that predates the 
existance of SenderID.

Scott K