spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: first draft, proposed agenda for SPF/ID BOF today at Inbox Event

2004-06-03 20:37:10
In 
<DD7FE473A8C3C245ADA2A2FE1709D90B0DB194(_at_)server2003(_dot_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
 "Michel Py" <michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us> writes:

But there is a three-way chicken-and-egg problem
that needs to be solved before the mainstream can
confidently reject on SPF fails.

This could be transformed from a three-way chicken-and-egg into a
two-way one, here's the rationale: [reasonable ractional snipped]

Therefore, the problem that senders are reluctant to publish -all does
not exist: publishing -all is a non-issue as long as the receiver does
not reject on -all before the forwarder issue is resolved.

Actually, I see the receivers being much more willing to reject on
-all than for senders to publish it.  There are a huge number of
domains that never send any email and those domain owners are quite
willing to publish -all.  As a result, receivers are quite willing to
reject email coming from those domains.  It is the domain owners that
send email that may go through forwarders that will be reluctant to
use -all.


I think Meng is right, there really is a three-way chicken-and-egg
problem.  However, I suspect that we won't need to use a flag-day or
deadline to create the forcing function.  I think there will be enough
domain owners that are willing to publish using -all and enough
receivers that are willing to reject on -all that mail forwarders will
be squeezed from the middle.


-wayne