On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 01:03 -0600, Andy Bakun wrote:
But unfortunately, this "fixes" forwarding in an SPF-enforcing-world by
getting rid of forwarding, and I don't think the SPF position on
forwarding should be "don't do it".
Why not? There are plenty of alternatives to SPF which don't have this
problem with forwarding, and which offer all the same benefits as SPF,
but without the need to change forwarding practice.
Why _can't_ the SPF position on forwarding just be "don't do it"?
Except that it's not if anyone values forwarding actually working.
It can still work; it's just that it's _your_ responsibility.
By publishing SPF you are declaring that you want to change the way the
world works, even though this particular change doesn't seem necessary.
By issuing a 551 response to mail from you when you've published an SPF
record, the forwarder can continue to operate as normal for most people,
while still giving _you_ the address to which mail is being forwarded
today. If you want to send your mail there directly, you can.
--
dwmw2