On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
"rawfail" recommends that a message be rejected always, ignoring the
possibility that a message may have failed SPF only because it passed
through a traditional forwarder. Coupled with the addition, v3 "fail"
would be explicitly defined to merely recommend rejection *if and only if*
the recipient MX is sure that the message is not a forward.
The forwarding you are concerned about is something only the
recipient can know about or initiate. Why would a sender want a message
rejected if the recipient happened to forward it to another mailbox?
I'm not saying it is stupid - in fact, I'll throw out a possible reason:
A bank wants to send messages directly to recipients via TLS, and
wants recipients to reject emails that came through a forwarder,
and were possibly tampered with.
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/2183229-668e5d0d
Modify Your Subscription:
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com