[mail-vet-discuss] Reworked section 2 (for -13)

[Michael Thomas]

Dotzero wrote:
> On 3/11/08, Scott Kitterman <mail-vet-discuss at kitterman.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 11 March 2008 19:50:33 Dotzero wrote:
>>> Murray,
>>>
>>> After reviewing section 2.4.3 I think it should be split out
>>> separately for SPF and Sender-ID. A pass for SPF does not mean the
>>> same thing as a pass for SIDF. Conflating the two is a recipe for
>>> problems. Mail From pass from SPF is totally different from PRA pass
>>> from SIDF.
>>>
>> Yes.  This is definitely true.
>>
>> Since PRA = From = Mail From about 80% of the time, it's an 80% solution.  80%
>> is good enough for Microsoft (I guess).  Unless that's good enough for you,
>> I'd say they ought to be disambiguated.
>>
> 
> You forgot to include the % of time that PRA=Sender and not From.

I think what would be helpful here is to massage the spf and senderid
sections to what you consider correct.

		Mike