On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
In that case, B rejected, not bounced, the SPF FAIL. Of course
A should bounce any rejections from the next hop. I'm talking
about when B in the above scenario accepts the mail, then sends
a DSN to sender after discovering belatedly (via late SPF check)
that it should have rejected it after all.
Since MFROM signing effectively alleviates the bounce spam problem, I suppose
it is not critical enough to warrant dictating receiver policy in the RFC.
Sure is annoying, though.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com