John Levine wrote:
The alternative is to take a big gulp of SPF kool-aid
The name of this beast is "reverse-path" in STD 10.
decide that mail forwarding has, after 20 years, stopped
being part of the way that SMTP mail works
| 251 User not local; will forward to <forward-path>
| The receiver takes responsibility for delivering the
Followed later by:
| The first host in the <reverse-path> should be the host
| sending this command.
I hope we don't want to go there.
That's your decision. I stick to the essence of STD 10.
The receiver is free to take the bounces (e.g. using SRS),
or he can reject my mail with 551. But he should not say
MAIL FROM:<me> if it's actually MAIL FROM:<@receiver,me>.
The decision to break forwarding after 20 years is a side-
effect of RfC 2821. Just like open relays it has to stop
now. The spammers found this loophole: "Hey, we can say
whatever we want in MAIL FROM after the real meaning of a
<reverse-path> was lost in cyberspace".
If we want SPF, we all know where to find it.
Yes, RfC 2821 broke it, SPF "-all" fixes it. BATV is an
alternative, it cures many symptoms of the same problem.
Sure, RfC 2821 only documented the loss of a real STD 10
<reverse-path>, and _that_ broke it almost beyond repair.
SPF "-all" can patch it for those who want it. Like me.
the EFF hasn't learned anything in the meantime.
That's putting it very mildly. Let them join forces with
the DMA or whatever comes next.