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

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 06:36:41PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> > does still not mean the discussion belongs here.
> 
> IBTD because I'd like to know if this is dubious code.
> If we know this we could put a warning on the SPF site.
> 
> SPF users should never have to worry about such issues,
> and if an implementor confused MAIL FROM with 2822-From
> (s)he belongs into a "hall of shame" on the main page -
> hopefully convincing other implementors that this isn't
> how they want a link to their code.

I think you know very well what I was saying, but for the off chance
that you didn't: there's one specific entity which takes our carefully
crafted SPF records and then {ab|re}uses them for their own incompatible
protocol: SenderID.

If implementors get it wrong when parsing the various headers with all
their if-then-else decisions, that's indirectly the fault of this other
protocol, not ours.  Why should we provide support?

I strongly believe that anything looking at message headers (perhaps
with the exception of return-path) is SenderID and that questions on
this should be redirected to the appropriate place.

I urge all who do actually implement SenderID to mention SenderID in
their error messages/bounces, not SPF.

Right now I feel like we are an unpaid helpdesk for MS, something I
do not like very much.

Cheers
Alex