der Mouse wrote:
[SPF]
First, it's drained off a nontrivial amount of effort that
could have gone towards developing something more effective.
For Gordon's idea, some kind of elaborated white listing based
on the sender if I got it right, you'll need a way to identify
the sender. SPF could help there (of course it's not the only
or even best solution, but it's near to a "minimal" solution).
And Gordon's idea sounds like Meng's "AGUPI" (assume guilty
until proven innocent). Okay, that has nothing to do with SPF.
Second, because it breaks bounces
SPF doesn't break bounces, it's an almost desperate attempt to
save them. If I'd send a mail to your address, and that is a
"traditional forwarder", and the next hop rejects the forward,
because you're not allowed to forge my MAIL FROM, then I get a
bounce from your forwarder. Nothing broken in this scenario.
If it's a "responsible forwarder" the next hop won't reject
your forward based on my sender policy. And if something else
breaks in this case you own the pieces, it's your mail.
I've already had one message produce a misfire from my
automated filtering because its envelope-from was mangled by
SRS (itself a direct consequence of SPF).
Just use another way to forward your mail if SRS confuses your
filters, and if modifying your filters is really no option.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg