On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 11:17:54AM -0500, Michael Weiner wrote:
|
| Agreed, i have already switched to -all sometime ago. Any statistics on
| ~all vs -all, just curious who is publishing with the -all.
|
As a sender with -all, have you seen any bounces due to
forwarding?
Godaddy.com is now rejecting on -all, which got them
applause at the FTC conference. But they're bearing a
certain customer support burden.
It's actually easier for forwarders to honour a -all, under
the assumption that forwarding to a forwarder is an order of
magnitude less common than single-hop forwarding.
I'm doing -all too. Keep in mind that whitepapers tend to
accumulate cautiousness. Unfortunately the sendmail
whitepaper explicitly recommends against SRS, even though
many forwarders have already implemented it, including
gmx.de, php.net, pobox.com, etc. The reason for
recommending against SRS and prepending headers is that it
munges things that should maybe not be munged, which might
break crypto. But I really don't see the problem. DK says
exactly what headers it signs, and by the time a BATV gets
reversed back out it shouldn't care either. The only case
where you might not want to SRS a return path is where SES
is happening, but even then, the rewritten address will pass
SPF anyway.