In <20041201172949(_dot_)GC16844(_at_)schlund(_dot_)de> Hannah Schroeter
<hannah(_at_)schlund(_dot_)de> writes:
Hello!
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 04:27:54PM -0000, Richard Bang wrote:
[...]
Receivers should implement:
?all - Treat mail with extreme caution
~all - Treat mail with caution
-all - Reject out of hand.
Huh, did you reverse the order of ? and ~?
I agree.
Forwarders:
Forward mail correctly
Where is it really defined that .forward style forwarding w/o envelope
rewriting is *not* correct (best some RFC source)?
I know of no RFC that requires or even suggests that .forward style
forwarding is incorrect. The term that RFC1123/RFC2821 uses for this
is "aliases".
That said, I'm don't know of any standard track RFCs that say that
open relays are incorrect.
The rules have changed, play by the new rules or leave the game.
They haven't, at least not yet (they would only if the SMTP RFCs would
be obsoleted or updated to indicate that forwarding w/o rewriting the
envelope MUST NOT be done).
RFCs aren't they only way things become standardized. There is a
de-facto standard that if you run an open relay, you will be listed on
any number of widely used DSNBLs and that will greatly effect your
ability to send email. "Forcing" people to close down their open
relays/proxies is a far bigger change than what SPF entails.
I don't like the burden that SPF is placing on forwarders and others.
I see things like SES and whitelisting of forwarders as useful
alternatives, although I suspect that for very long time, people will
be required to do some of all three of those.
BTW, this discussion is violating Meng's moratorium on this subject,
so maybe we should just leave it for a while.
-wayne