In
<1087202543(_dot_)15845(_dot_)1350(_dot_)camel(_at_)hades(_dot_)cambridge(_dot_)redhat(_dot_)com>
David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> writes:
So either you don't understand fully,
Welcome back David! I haven't seen you trolling here for a while. ;->
So either you don't understand fully, or you're happy with the fact that
when your clients send email to another address outside your control,
and that email gets forwarded on to its final destination without SRS,
you are trying to cause that valid mail to be lost.
Which of those two is it? Are your clients happy with your decision?
That's a false dilemma.
It is the *receivers* that set up forwarding arrangements, therefore
it is *receivers* that need to worry about the situation. Receivers
can do many things, including making sure the *particular* forwarder
they use does SRS (or equivalent), are whitelisted via the SPF "local
policy" option, or listed on the T-FWL.
Once upon a time, I was extremely worried about this forwarding issue.
I thought it might be a killer for SPF. I was *so* worried, that last
fall, long before most people had even heard of SPF, I created the
trusted-forwarder.org global whitelist (T-FWL) to help deal with this
situation. I expected to be flooded with forwarders that needed to be
whitelisted, but it simply has turned out not to be the case in
practice. It appears that the amount of forwarded email on the modern
internet is extremely small.
It is *because* I'm so involved with the SPF forwarding situation and
*because* I have actual data about how often the T-FWL is used, that I
have changed my mind. In practice, forwarding is a very small problem.
-wayne