----- Original Message -----
From: "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: RFC 2821 and responsibility for forwarding
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 01:03 -0600, Andy Bakun wrote:
But unfortunately, this "fixes" forwarding in an SPF-enforcing-world by
getting rid of forwarding, and I don't think the SPF position on
forwarding should be "don't do it".
Why not? There are plenty of alternatives to SPF which don't have this
problem with forwarding, and which offer all the same benefits as SPF,
but without the need to change forwarding practice.
Why _can't_ the SPF position on forwarding just be "don't do it"?
Because the user base is too large. Too many services, such as the alumni
email addresses at MIT, are based on giving people a permanent email address
that simply forwards the email to the person's real email address. In Boston
alone, we're talking about many thousands of people of people, and probably
many millions worldwide who casually use email forwarding even if they're
not aware that's how they get certain email.