wayne wrote:
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.
RFC2821 6.1:
" If the address is an explicit source route, it MUST be stripped down
to its final hop.
For example, suppose that an error notification must be sent for a
message that arrived with:
MAIL FROM:<@a,@b:user(_at_)d>
The notification message MUST be sent using:
RCPT TO:<user(_at_)d> "
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.
I hope that SPF-query is (or will be) RFC2821 compliant. Than routing
syntax in the MAIL FROM command will help to continue relaying,
forwarding, gatewaying.
z2
-------
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?¡