I want to thank Chris Haynes for his summary of
"conservative" and "progressive" positions.
I have recorded a very similar summary on page 16 of
http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 10:23:41AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote:
|
| > How, and from where, would one get an 'authoritative' ruling about
| > the conformance or non-conformance of forwarding (using the origin's
| > MAIL FROM with a new RCPT TO) to the extant SMTP architecture?
|
| I would like an answer to that question, too.
|
I wonder if we could ask the IESG to vote on it.
| .forward files are not required for SMTP to work. Entirely
| equivalent functionality can be obtained without using a third parties
| name in "MAIL FROM". That functionality requires changes to the sites
| using .forward files, and nothing else.
BTW, verbatim forwarding is practiced not just by unixheads
with .forward files, but also by hosted domains, of which
there are millions in existence, and alumni / lifetime email
services like alumni.*.edu and acm.org.
The hosting providers can implement workarounds, and
forwarding service providers can implement workarounds.
From the receiver end, trusted-forwarder.org lets receivers
whitelist forwarding hosts.
That leaves only the ad-hoc forwarding setups. For those
cases, I would like to be able to tell them "just upgrade".
Shevek has been leading the effort to get SRS into MTAs.
For 2005 I plan to expand that MTA-patching effort to
include the Leibzon trace headers and MS's Resent-*.
(DK+IIM will be part of the patch effort also.)
That is where things stand as of November 2004.