David MacQuigg wrote:
Maybe we could show direct relationships with == and indirect
relationships with ~~ and "same ADMD" relationships as
MTA1/MTA2. The situation we are discussing is then
Sender(s) ==> Transmitter --> / --> Receiver/Forwarder ~~> MDA ==> Recipient
Border (box67.com) (aol.com)
What I mean by a "direct relationship" is a contract, or at
least a signup on a website. As an example, my service
box67.com acts as a Receiver and Forwarder for an individual,
Robert, who has asked us to forward his mail to aol.com.
Robert has an account at aol.com, so there is also a direct
relationship between him and AOL.
Thus, in case Robert's account at AOL provides for local storage
you would have written ~~> MDA/Recipient?
I still have problems with forwarding from MDA. Scripts or
similar means to (conditionally) forward messages are in a
different position w.r.t. the Receiver/Forwarder mainstream.
In facts, we can envisage some special behavior that the
forwarding MTA may accomplish in order to honor any specific
agreement that encompasses forwarding mail. However, a send mail
command issued in a different context may revert to the default
MTA behavior. Or do we mean that the "direct relationship"
should affect _any_ mail exchange from box67 to that Recipient
along that path?
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com