Dave Crocker wrote:
MAIL FROM:<me(_at_)xyzzy>
From: you(_at_)dcrocker
Subject: SPF-test
bounce messages need to go to the author or the person
responsible for posting the message.
While you're using my box I'm still responsible for what you
do with it. Of course, if you don't have a sender policy for
you(_at_)dcrocker I'd allow that you say MAIL FROM:<you(_at_)dcrocker>,
and my favourite ISP would believe it - they have log files
with the dial-up numbers and dynamic IPs to catch me if I'd
abuse this feature.
it is entirely inappropriate to route bounces back to the
first mta.
Bounces are for technical problems. If you send mail from me,
(during your spontaneous visit) then I should get the bounces.
in the cases i described, it would be, at best, useless to
route bounce information back to the administrators of the
systems i used to create and post the message.
Who else should get the bounce ? Certainly not you(_at_)dcrocker,
bouncing to the (2)822 From is wrong. As you said in STD 11:
| The envelope contains whatever information is needed to
| accomplish transmission and delivery.
[...]
| The "Return-Path" field can aid recipients in recovering from
| these errors.
MAIL FROM:<you(_at_)dcrocker> actually sent from me _is_ wrong.
the mailfrom is a bounce address. it is not an author or
poster address.
If you have no problem with your bounce address (ab)used by 3rd
parties like me or spammers you don't need any "sender policy".
Maybe you use BATV, that works 100%. But you can't use it on
my box, I haven't implemented it. I have the BATV draft, we
could compute a BATV MAIL FROM:<???(_at_)dcrocker> manually during
your next spontaneous visit ;-)
you are merely swapping one way of crippling the service with
another.
My sender policy doesn't affect your mail. Only _your_ sender
policy could affect MAIL FROM:<you(_at_)dcrocker> or HELO dcrocker.
Bye, Frank