RE: [Exim] Re: SPF

| > The author still makes false claims and doesn't seem to
| > understand the purpose, nor the limitations, of the SMTP
| > envelope sender address.
| >
| > The whole idea of both proposals is based on false assumptions.
|
| I haven't had the time to read the draft. Would you care to enlighten me
| a bit? Besides the forward-issue the SPF concept seems like a good
| concept to me. What are the false assumptions and how do they interfere
| with the usability of SPF?

Perhaps worth reading the proposals ?

Its simply an over-complicated form of whitelisting.

In the real world, a significant proportion of bona-fide mail is sent by
SMTP clients that could never be "designated senders" for the envelope
sender domain they use.