[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Source routing -- why not?

To: John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Source routing -- why not?
From: Chip Mefford <cpm@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:13:09 -0500
Cc: ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-mxcomp.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mxcomp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Levine wrote:
| After further deliberation about source routing and SPF, I have come
| around to the conclusion that Frank is to some degree right, and if
| you want to use SPF/Sender-ID, you should use source routes.
|

Why not just go back to bang path?

It works.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB3BIVa44x14FCa6ARArX0AJ92QcPba6HYs8VecFM9QGGMJSJz4wCff+hL
43rAj7nGpWxTl5d6kcC6PIg=
=IGRv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- Source routing -- why not?
  - From: John Levine

Prev by Date: RE: blowback, was A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]
Previous by thread: Re: Source routing -- why not?
Next by thread: Re: Complaint on personal attack by Matthew Elvey by Dean Anderson of av8. (fwd)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread