Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope

[Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> 2) "fetchmail", meaning the algorithm explained in
> http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04356.html

Not very different from spf2.0/mailfrom if I got this right.
The conclusion in RfC 3834 (4) is:

| The Return-Path address is really the only one from the
| message header that can be expected, as a matter of protocol,
| to be suitable for automatic responses that were not
| anticipated by the sender.

> I simply believe that, given the current state of the art
> about email identities, it is better to have choice.

Yes.  For an unmodified PRA to work RfC 2476 could be updated
(8.1 MAY insert Sender => MUST insert Sender), but actually it
would be simpler to fix the algorithm (pretend that a Sender
matching the Return-Path is there if necessary).

                         Bye, Frank