Apologies if this has been discussed before; I'm new to the list...
It strikes me that a sunrise mechanism is needed to solve the .forward
problem, in the same way that it's needed to solve the travelling
salesman problem.
If you're going to publish SPF records, then you want to set your
default to softdeny, until you're sure that all your users are sending
mail through your designated relay.
However, if you're going to check SPF records on incoming mail, then
you want to be able to force a softdeny (even if the SPF record says
deny) until you're sure that you're aware of all users who receive
mail via external accounts that forward to them (and taken any
necessary steps to ensure things won't break).
So I'd suggest that the SPF draft (or whatever replaces it) should
mandate a sunrise mechanism for receivers, too. A receiving
implementation SHOULD provide a mechanism to treat deny as if it were
softdeny.
What do you think?
-roy
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡