Hello!
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 11:48:23AM -0600, wayne wrote:
In <20041201172949(_dot_)GC16844(_at_)schlund(_dot_)de> Hannah Schroeter
<hannah(_at_)schlund(_dot_)de> writes:
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.
Fine.
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.
Apples and oranges in my eyes.
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.
You mean "affect".
And I disagree. SRS changes how service is provided. Closing down
open relays just changes to whom service is provided.
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.
Yes, and perhaps a combination of all these could be a good solution
from a pragmatic POV.
BTW, this discussion is violating Meng's moratorium on this subject,
so maybe we should just leave it for a while.
Ok, I'll shut up about this (which subject(s) *exactly* is/are covered
by the moratorium [a reference to the message ID or so would be enough -
I must have missed the moratorium mail]?) after this mail.
Kind regards,
Hannah.