spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Sendmail white paper

2004-11-23 15:48:17
-----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 14:29
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Sendmail white paper

I think the example should be A -> B -> C -> D would in 
common sense be A -> B -> D  (drop C, not B, because B
is the email address on his business card/website/whatever),

Yes, that is the better route, of course. Take my sourceforge address;
that is the one fixed 'front', if you will. Someone, A, sends mail to
sourceforge, B, who forwards it to my final destination, C. There is, in
all reasonability, no reason for me, without being silly, to have
sourceforge send that mail to another forwarder first. And that is the
relevant weigh-factor, as I see it: what happens in practice. And in
practice, I reckon forwards will be one-time hops, like the one above.

I am not saying no other forwards ever happen, because I'm sure they do.
But by implementing SPF/SRS, I bank on reasonable expectations, not on
convoluted theoretical setups to show SPF is broken.

- Mark 
 
        System Administrator Asarian-host.org
 
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx