On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 08:00:59PM +0000, Mark wrote:
|
| Whoa! When you drop a bomb like this, you can really hear it a mile wide! :)
LOL
|
| Personally, I have been using SRS (or SES, rather), for quite a while; and it
neatly serves its purpose, next to SPF.
|
| SRS, contrary to popular belief, was, of course, not designed with the
purpose of making people's lives unnecessarily difficult. If you have a
suggestion that will easily solve the forwarder problem, I gladly join in, of
course. But without a workable alternative, just "getting rid" of it seems a
bit premature.
|
On the contrary, the New SPF would actually make SES more integral and
drop the SRS requirement for forwarders, thus vindicating Seth and the
SES camp.
Please come on irc.pobox.com channel #spf to do some realtime discussion.
|
| There a quite a few things that would work. Using the existing EXPN command,
for instance, to indicate who you are forwarding for, would be one possible
solution. That would actually work excellently. Except, that you cannot count
on EXPN to work this way across mail servers yet. SRS works now, regardless of
whether the receiving mail server implemented something on their end. That is
its strength.
|
The replacement for SRS looks something like "well, SRS is still fine and
good if you want to do that, but here's something that will be easier
as long as everybody goes along with it".
On a strategic level, the last time we dealt with stuff like this, we
were driving with skinny tires. Now our tires are a lot fatter and we
can get more traction, so we can start thinking about going places we
couldn't go before.