John Leslie wrote, On 1/23/09 9:13 AM:
Ian Eiloart <iane(_at_)sussex(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
--On 21 January 2009 12:27:56 -0500 John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> wrote:
However, there are a limited number of ways that forwarding might be
shown in the trace headers, so it should be practical to determine that
a forwarding is documented (though possibly forged).
We then have a quite different situation from what raw SPF processing
would indicate. Thus I claim the rules deserve to be relaxed (without
going into detail how).
The point I was attempting to make is that SPF records _can_ accurately
reflect sender policy, while SPF processing will incorrectly indicate a
violation of it.
There's also a subtle variation on that...
It was discussed (even here) in the early development of SPF that a trailing
'-all' can and perhaps should be read as a 'do not forward' policy
statement by a domain owner. That was not considered a valuable feature by
the people who ended up promoting SPF, but there are people who publish such
records with the intent of expressing such a policy.
Whether such a policy should be within the authority of a domain owner is a
knotty question.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg