-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Michael Deutschmann wrote:
Well, about time I voted...
The reason I bothered registering is that I see one area where the SPF
effort could be guided better. This is the forwarding problem.
Any reaction from the candidates to this position?
I think SRS is a hack that isn't likely to get deployed widely any time
soon -- probably not even in the long run. Instead I think that the net
should conceptually be divided into exactly two halves at all times: the
sender's network and the receiver's network. There is no room for
unaccountable middlemen "just passing mail along". If I as a receiver set
up a forwarding using a 3rd party's forwarding service, I will have to
trust them and consider them part of my own e-mail network. That's
essentially what the lame "TENBOX" catchphrase is about. (Can we find
another term? In any case I think we do need one.)
One other idea that has been buried in RFCs 821 and 2821 largely unnoticed
is the HTTP-redirection-like "551 User not local; please try
org>"-style "forwarding" (Frank mentioned it before). I think this would
be _the_ solution if only more MTAs supported it. If we want to work on
getting rid of the forwarding problem in _MTAs_ (as opposed to writing
glue code for receiver-side forwarder white-listing), that's where we
should channel our efforts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735