----- Original Message -----
From: "Radu Hociung" <radu(_dot_)spf(_at_)ohmi(_dot_)org>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Handling of -all
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Are you implying that B should deliver undeliverable mail to
a local spam folder ?
No. I'm saying that if the mail can't be rejected due to SPF during the
SMTP session, then it shouldn't be bounced. It should be delivered.
Great conversation guys, you're hitting a lot of nails right on the head
:)
There's a booby trap here. "Should be delivered" is not the same thing as
"not rejected by SPF". SPF is not an *approval* method, it's a *rejection*
method. Any other filtering the recipients are doing can certainly still be
done.
Every time we get into one of these "oh, gee, SPF breaks forwarding so it
should be modified to just pass stuff along" discussions we're wasting tme
and resources. The "MAIL FROM" line generated by email reflectors is broken.
Period. The technology needs to go away, or we will continue to face a
serious burden of decoding all the spam sent via forged email addresses and
bounce addresses, exactly thesituation SPF is supposed to address.
SRS and SES do a better job of handling such forwarding, and making the
machine and postmaster allowing the forwarding responsible for the bounce
message, as they should be because they're the one sending it.