In <bujvlf$5fd$1(_at_)sea(_dot_)gmane(_dot_)org> "Za'mbori, Zolta'n"
<zamboriz(_at_)axelero(_dot_)hu> writes:
It is not necessary. There is a "place" for a forwarder to express
itself in a RFC2821 _and_ SPF compliant way:
MAIL FROM:<AT envelope-sender:envelope-return AT example>
Modern MTAs will send bounce directly back to 'envelope-return AT
example',
MTAs *may* send bounces to either envelope-return(_at_)example or it may
send bounces to envelope-return(_at_)envelope-sender(_dot_) You have no idea
which, and you have no control over what will happen.
Source routing won't work for bouncing.
while SPF can check that the SMTP client IP is authorized to
send mail by 'envelope-sender'.
SPF *may* be given @envelope-sender to check, or it may be given
@example to check. You have no idea which, and you have no control
over what will happen.
Source routing won't work for SPF checking.
-wayne
-------
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-02.9.4.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?¡