On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:08:54AM +0100, Roy Badami wrote:
| draft needs to say more about it. In particular, I would like to see
| two things in the draft:
|
| * a section in the SPF draft itself that identifies the problem.
|
| * a clear statement that it is the responsibility of the _receiving_
| party to solve this problem, eg by whitelisting, or by ensuring that
| the forwarders all comply with SRS or something similar, before
| deploying SPF checks (see also my comment on sunrise).
|
| Put another way, if I publish (correct) SPF records for my domain, and
| then send a message to A, who forwards to B, who then applies SPF
| checks and bounces the mail, it should be clear from the spec that
| it's B that's at fault, and not me. Publishing SPF records mustn't
| carry with it a responsibility not to send mail to mail forwarding
| accounts, since that's clearly unworkable (and will act as a
| disincentive to publish the records).
|
Section 5.1 describes the problem; is that satisfactory?
Assigning fault is not within the scope of an RFC; but I will devote a
section of the web site to working around .forward problems.
-------
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?¡