John Leslie wrote:
John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
[SPF] only works for the subset of mail that is sent from a fixed point
to recipients who don't remail or forward it.
It works well also with a number of mailing lists. Alias expansions
admittedly leaves something to be desired. However, considering that
even rfc5321 screws up the term "forwarding" in that section, it
should be tolerated in an experimental rfc...
Fundamentally, of course, the attempt to have one-size-fits-all
processing by the receiving MTA is dubious. It's not the coding of SPF
records that breaks forwarding: it's the processing of them. Relaxing
the processing rules could help a lot.
Would you please expand on that? Relaxing rules implies the knowledge
that a message is being forwarded. Are you talking about whitelisting
well known forwarders, or what?
And I see promise in the use of the pending
Authentication-Results header (though I must agree with Doug Otis that
it would be stronger if it included the IP address).
(
Hm... the header's name suggests it is reporting already acquired
results, as had been noted. I'm surprised Doug didn't propose an
additional test more in tune with that spirit, e.g.
Authentication-Results: example.com;
dnsbl=pass zone=zen.spamhaus.org address=192.0.2.3
)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg