I like Scott's suggestion better.
Terry
Scott Kitterman wrote:
-----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 wayne
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 4:14 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] website beta testers
Hi.
Could people look around at http://spf.schlitt.net and see if they can
find anything that works differently than on spf.pobox.com? There
should be *no* differences. I want to make sure everthing works
before I start breaking things.
While you are poking around, you might want to write up a list of the
things you would like to see changed, and then submit then post the
top 5 or so here. Be specific. The things that show up most on the
top 5 lists will be fixed first. I will probably favor fixing content
over layout issues 'cause we are likely to move the content over to
some other format anyway.
Thanks
-wayne
Here's another one for you....
At: http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html#forwarding, it says, among other things:
"Yes, it does. You'll have to switch from forwarding, where the envelope
sender is preserved, to remailing, where the envelope sender is changed. But
don't worry, we're working on providing SRS patches for the four major
opensource MTAs, so that when you upgrade to an SPF-aware version, this
problem will be solved also.
If your forwarding runs through a commercial service like pobox.com, you
shouldn't have to do anything. They have to change with the times, and
perform the above rewriting automatically for you. SRS is a structured
standard that helps them adapt."
I think this is fundamentally wrong. I'd propose this alternative:
"SPF doesn't "break" forwarding so much as SPF checking receivers need so
understand where they are receiving from and why. Onward routing of e-mail
is either under the control of the sender or the receiver at any given
point. The place where SPF checks should be done is where that control
transitions. If an SPF check is done later, great care must be used to
ensure the correct identities are used.
In the case of traditional .forward forwarding, this transition is at the
forwarder, so a SPF checking MTA MUST know who the traditional forwarders
are that it is receiving from. Much as creating an SPF record requires
senders to understand and control their outbound architecture, SPF checking
requires receivers to understand their inbound architecture.
SRS provides a limited exception to this requirement, but is not widely
deployed.
Much (if not most) SPF checking being done is currently poorly configured in
this regard, thus forwarding problems. trusted-forwarder.org is an interim
work-around to allow forwarders to be whitelisted. SPF checking MTAs can
use this to support receiver policy. As a sender policy, senders can add
?include:spf.trusted-forwarder.org to their SPF records to attempt to
mitigate this problem."
I predict not everyone will agree. Let's see...
Scott K
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
--
Terry Fielder
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Associate Director Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085