-----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 David
Woodhouse
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 5:41 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: RFC 2821 and responsibility for
forwarding
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.
You keep saying that, but all I have seen you mention have been refuted.
Please do this: Respond with THE ONE alternative solution which you have
evaluated to be THE BEST
alternative to SPF. I would like this hand waving to stop so either:
1) I can drop SPF and take up your alternative proposal (if its better)
or
2) You can be officially refuted from making that hand waving gesture about
some other magic
bullet.
This is an not an attack. I actually want to know the better alternative, I
would love to adopt it
if it exists. :)
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
<snip>