-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of
william(at)elan.net
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 11:21 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] SPF+SRS vs. BATV (was: SPF Stats)
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 09:53 -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
Any recipient who rejects your mail because they forwarded it
somewhere else first is badly broken.
You still seem confused. The recipient didn't forward the mail. The
forwarder did. This involves three (or more) entirely separate
administration domains.
My mail hosts act as a forwarder for a number of addresses. Any
recipient domain which rejects mail merely because I've forwarded it is
broken, yes. I have occasionally had cause to contact them and explain
why they should stop using SPF, to avoid throwing away valid mail for
their users. So far this has worked.
As Greg said the problem is not SPF - its how SPF is being marketed to
and as a result thereafter setup and used by mail adminstrators. If site
users have forwarding email coming to them (and presumable email users
would know that), this would have to be accounted for. But the setup of
spf with reection is being done for entire mail site without making
certain prior to that that this would not be a problem for local users.
Another problem is on the other end. SPF is designed as a tool for the
domain owner. There are registrars and domain hosts that provide DNS
services to domain owners who have gone and published -all records on behalf
of their customers without consulting them or in some cases without even
informing them. This is a REALLY bad idea.
Scott K