-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of
terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com
Sent: dinsdag 23 november 2004 14:34
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Sendmail white paper
David Woodhouse wrote:
Actually a lot of people do the A->B->C->D thing. The host 'B' may
be one of many hosts on which a user has a mail account such as
kernel.org, ftp.uk.linux.org, etc. The 'C' could be my infradead.org
account; a permanent address. And 'D' may be wherever I actually want
my mail to end up this week.
If C is your own host, David, then you cannot use the argument that you
have no control over it. :) Unless you purposely want to break things,
going from C -> D.
Terry Fielder wrote:
Since you control the forwarding of B, just forward it to D directly
bypassing C.
Which was my point. Regardless of SPF/SRS, common, practical sense
dictates that you never forward over more hops than is stricty necessary;
because each extra hop presents a new location where something could go
wrong, transmission-wise.
If kernel.org forwards mail for David, and David has control over where
that .forward goes (and it would be silly to argue that he had not), then
he would forward to D directly. And if he must per se forward to his own
host, C, first, then surely, at his own host, he can make that forward
work.
I am saying these things just to inject a bit of sanity in the ongoing
forwarding saga. Like I said on IRC, yesterday, some people have their own
agenda. Like showing SPF/SRS is bad, at all cost, so as to promote their
own version of SES. Which is fine, because we live in a free world. And
sometimes I even go along, for the sake of argument. And sometimes
I do not. :)
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx