Re: Sendmail white paper, SRS, and forwarding

On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 15:09 -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
> Unless the domain owner is exercising his or her right the use of the 
> domain in this way. In which case SPF is not broken at all... it's doing 
> exactly what the domain owner intends.
That is indeed precisely the stupidity of which I speak. It's about as
sane as me 'restricting' the right of v2.listbox.com to send this
message with its header From address of 'dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org'.

Actually Roger's example it's less sane than that because the original
mail wasn't from f1.com in the first place. In his example, the original
sender may not even have published and SPF record. It was the domain
'f1.com' which gratuitously 'took responsibility' for it by using SRS,
and _then_ declared that it was invalid when it had passed through the
second forwarder. SRS breaks mail even for people who didn't publish a
'-all' record. 

But that's not the point. The point was that this braindamage isn't
related to SES. This is all part of the brokenness that is SPF and SRS.
Trying to see how mail in the real world relates to that is pointless
because it _doesn't_.

-- 
dwmw2