On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, der Mouse wrote:
I question the reason for the difference, given that the current MTA
".forward" mechanism and aliasing appear to stand in the way of
allowing a straightforward SPF implementation, particularly because
the "original author" can be foreign to the MTA doing the
forwarding.
I suggest that you have your causal concerns, or power relationships,
reversed.
The problem is that SPF imposes an unreasonable restriction on
long-established, highly reasonable uses of email.
I expect that if (and I am not advocating it) the rejection of mail
because of SPF discrepancies becomes widespread, the operators of MTAs
doing so will offer their users the ability to register forwarders that
will be exempt for their own mail. That is, each user will be allowed to
specify one or more MTAs that can forward mail to that user without SPF
checks. This would enable .forward forwarding, without affecting mailing
lists or forwarding by MUAs.
One of the reasons that SPF is not widely yet used to reject mail, is that
that ability is not yet built into mail servers.
Daniel Feenberg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg