spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Forwarding is spoofing Was: ElectronicFrontier Foundation (EFF) Article OnAnti-Spam Technologies Mentions SPF

2004-11-22 10:45:15
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:58:41PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter wrote:

Semantically, for automatic forwards it makes more sense that the
original sender gets the error messages.

Sure.  And who might that be?

How many "be blocked a message from you" and/or "user xyz does not
wish to receive" messages did you receive today?  And how many of
those were actually your fault because you actually did forward a
virus?

How do you deal with automatic forwarding? And with the bounce loop
described?

User "A" is sending mail to user "B".
User "B" is forwarding its mail to user "C" at MTA "C".

If MTA "A" delivers mail to user "B" at MTA "B", and if a problem
occurs while delivering "B"'s mail (!) to MTA "C", why should either
one of user "A" or postmaster@"A" know about the problem?

Yes, I've heard the argument that user A may want to know the mail
has not been delivered.  First of all, I disagree.  It has been
delivered, responsibility was accepted by MTA "B".  Second, I don't
think it is user A nor its postmaster that should be bothered when
there is a problem between B and C.

Last but not least, who gives permission to MTA "B" and its operators
to use a name from MTA A's domain.  Even worse, when domain A explicitly
denies the use of its domain name, B is still trying...

Anyway... after food for the mind, now it's time for food for the body.
Later...

Alex
-- 
I ask you to respect any "Reply-To" and "Mail-Follow-Up" headers.  If
you reply to me off-list, you'd better tell me you're doing so.  If
you don't, and if I reply to the list, that's your problem, not mine.


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