wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wrote:
In <20050523134752(_dot_)GF89934(_at_)verdi> John Leslie
There is an explicit recommendation that domains publish "... -all":
I recommend changing that. Instead, I strongly urge that levels of
disclaiming be defined from the very outset of RFC publication:
Like many subjects related to SPF, this has been hotly debated more
than once. There is a whole section on forwarding, along with other
problems faced by people using SPF. I do not think your suggests are
accurate. In particular, if you use SES, forwarding does not break
I think we may need to explore this last claim: that forwarding does
not break "if you use SES".
SPF proposes to be a cooperation between SPF publishers and receiving
SMTP servers. Alas, if _both_ of these used SES -- indeed even if all
sending SMTP servers operated by the domain of the SPF publisher used
SES -- it would have no effect on whether forwarding breaks.
Thus, any claim that SPF "doesn't break forwarding" rests upon a
presumption that parties _other_than_ the parties described in this
draft will change their behavior. This is a dangerous assumption at
best; worse, it is an assumption never made explicit in the draft.
IMHO, the recommendation that most domains use "... -all" is an
egregiously bad one, representing a fundamental misunderstanding of
the environment we must operate in. The thought that spf-discuss has
repeatedly endorsed it worries me...
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>