On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 03:48:53PM -0500, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
|
| The point I set out to make was that sending the 551 back to the sender
| is a completely legitimae thing to do with that sort of SMTP rejection.
A -> B -> C
If the forwarder doesn't do SRS, the rejection will happen one way or
another ---
What's been proposed is
A X) B -> C
But it seems easier to just let the failure occur like with
A -> B X) C
It seems easier all around if the rejection happens at C than at B.
After all, it's A and C who are doing SPF, and B is the "innocent" ---
if B is going to start rejecting SPF mail, it looks like it's getting
involved just to make a point.
Commercial forwarders are going to have to do SRS anyway, because
they're in the business of making things work, not making things break.