spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: a "never relays" parameter

2004-06-09 13:40:10
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Daniel 
Quinlan
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 4:18 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] a "never relays" parameter


<spf(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> writes:

OK.  Now I'm confused (no great feat).  Then explain again how this
would act differently than -all?

"-all" still allows others to relay your mail (on your behalf).  "-all"
makes no distinction in policy between direct-only mail and mail that
may or may not be relayed.

The primary corner case seems to be forwarding services, but that is
easily handled.  While it is not practical (or smart) for
billing.aol.com to extend trust to every forwarding service out there,
it is practical for individual *receivers* to extend their trust out to
any forwarding service they use (and trust them to do SPF checks for
them).

Daniel

OK.  I think I understand what you're after.  I don't understand the
benefit.

It sounds to me like you are trying create a mechanism to allow the sender
to impose receipt processing policy on the receiver.  I don't think that's a
good idea.

Even if it was a good idea, I don't see where it helps.  There are
fundamentally only two scenarios:

1.  Forwarder does something like SRS that lets the ultimate recipient make
a decision about the mail being sent from a permitted sender.

2.  Forwarder does nothing that lets the ultimate recipient figure it out
and the recipient has to whitelist the forwarder.

I don't see either of those scenarios changing with your proposal.

Sorry,

Scott Kitterman


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>