Frank Ellermann wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Can anybody describe what benefit SSP would give if it chose some
other address? Other than supposedly genuflecting to RFC2822?
I thought I've done this often enough, but maybe it wasn't clear:
From: strictly(_dot_)you(_at_)an(_dot_)example
Sender: you(_at_)elsewhere(_dot_)example
This is a valid scenario, where you used your favourite address
strictly(_dot_)you(_at_)an(_dot_)example as From, protected by a strict SSP in
the
an.example domain. For reasons that are nobody's business but
your own you submitted the mail at an MSA of elsewhere.example,
and this MSA added your Sender address, implementing RFC 4409 8.1.
The unsigned (or at least not signed by an.example) mail arrives
at Alice's ssp.checker.example MTA, and for some reasons of its
own it accepts your strictly failing mail as "suspicious", ending
up in Alice's "suspicious" folder. She's used to ignore mails in
this folder because it's almost always spam, and after some days
your mail is purged => legit mail lost. Neither your nor Alice's
fault, also not the fault of 2822upd or 4409. It's SSP's fault.
I have limited sympathy for "you" (not you, Frank). You submitted a
message contrary to the published SSP, and it did its job. I count this
is a success.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html