spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC 2821 and responsibility for forwarding

2004-12-05 14:36:44
Andy Bakun wrote:

Is this some kind of round-a-bout way to suggest that this
thread is off-topic because it doesn't specifically mention
"sender policies"?

No, when I post here I've often read more than one article,
including mxcomp / ASRG / spamcop / etc., and that somehow
ends up in a reply to one poor author - in that case you ;-)

I really hate it when "they" say that "SPF breaks forwarding"
without mentioning that this is its one and only feature, and
that it's kind of obvious that testing MTA IPs announced by a
sender works only at the border of the receiver, not later.

I thought this thread was on-topic

It is, and in fact it helped me to find out that Meng's idea
of local white list does not cover all cases where SRS isn't
good enough (or where a forwarder simply hates the SRS idea)

Your "big ISP" example was convincing, they cannot offer a WL
for their customers, because SPF tests based on the RCPT TO
are a technical nightmare (probably impossible).

"what is SPF going to do about forwarding"

Apparently we have to offer more strategies, incomplete list:

- global white list trusted-forwarder.org (temporary)
- local white lists
- some kind of SRS
- some kind of SUBMIT (with corresponding 2822 headers)
- some kind of digest (or single message/rfc822) forwarding
- ordinary POP3 (incl. all solutions working on top of POP3)

OTOH it's not our job to explain all details.  Bye, Frank