On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:19:52AM -0500, wayne wrote:
In
<1120824561(_dot_)19467(_dot_)473(_dot_)camel(_at_)hades(_dot_)cambridge(_dot_)redhat(_dot_)com>
David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> writes:
But nobody volunteered any reasons why, in the _absence_ of SPF (which
we know has technical problems with forwarding) there is any other
reason to consider it to be a bad thing. I'd heard nobody say that
forwarding was wrong, or 'forgery', before SPF was invented. What,
_other_ than the technical problems of SPF, has changed?
I think, if you dig around in the archive, you will quickly find
people who have said that forwarding w/o rewriting is wrong and
forgery. I have seen many people saying something along the lines of
"the problem with stopping forgery is that you have to stop *all*
forgery".
You're feeding the troll. It knows perfectly well that this nobody
gave examples where forwarders introduce problems with or without SPF.
Alex