In
<1120574145(_dot_)19467(_dot_)168(_dot_)camel(_at_)hades(_dot_)cambridge(_dot_)redhat(_dot_)com>
David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> writes:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 09:10 -0500, wayne wrote:
In
<1120572057(_dot_)19467(_dot_)142(_dot_)camel(_at_)hades(_dot_)cambridge(_dot_)redhat(_dot_)com>
David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> writes:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 09:53 -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
Any recipient who rejects your mail because they forwarded it
somewhere else first is badly broken.
You still seem confused. The recipient didn't forward the mail. The
forwarder did. [...]
Any forwarding that is done with out the explicit concent of the
recipient is abusive.
That's your definition maybe, but I don't think you'll find any ISP
including "forwarding of users' mail to the ISP's mailhosts from
elsewhere" under what is defined as 'abuse' in their Acceptable Use
Policy.
If the forwarding is done without the recipient's concent, then it is
unsolicited. If a lot of email gets forwarded, then it is bulk.
I think UBE is in volation of most AUP/TOS for both ISPs and internet
bandwidth providers.
Again, the point is that the recipient will have requested the
forwarding. This is something they will know about. (And, if they
don't, they should complain about.)
The administrator of the final recipient can choose to whether to
support forwarded email or not. If the admin chooses to not support
forwarding, then the recipeient shouldn't foward to that destination.
If they choose to support forwarding, then they should take steps to
support forwarding.
Right. And in general it isn't acceptable for any large mail provider to
_not_ support forwarding, and the only feasible way they can support
forwarding it to refrain from checking SPF. That's the approach which is
taken by most so far.
The number of people doing SPF checking is increasing a lot. I've
been meaning to create a plot of the growth of the T-FWL hits, but
I've had higher priority stuff.
I did post the following to #spf a few days ago:
Jun 30 07:45:47 <grumpy> Hmmm... my name server broke 4M
lookups on the T-FWL yesterday for the first time.
Jun 30 07:46:05 <grumpy> it broke 3M on Apr 28th
Jun 30 07:46:28 <grumpy> and 2M on Apr 1st
Jun 30 07:46:29 <Julian> grumpy: Congrats!
Jun 30 07:46:37 <Julian> Also, congrats to SPF!
Jun 30 07:46:55 <Julian> That clearly indicates a significant
increase in SPF checking.
Jun 30 07:46:57 <grumpy> 1M was Oct 26
So, I disagree with your opinion, but I'm sure you aren't suprised by
that.
It isn't just SPF that is causing problems for forwarders in todays
email environment. Anyone who forwards email and doesn't do very
strict anti-spam measures risks being blacklisted as a spam source.
Obviously. That's hardly new.
Forwarding without rewriting the 2821.MAILFROM also causes problems
with bounces because the sender will receive a bounce from some place
that they never sent email to.
That's not a _problem_ though. That's just normal operation. It's worked
that way for years.
Uh, I disagree. That *is* a problem. Just because it has been a
problem for many years doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. It has
become a much worse problem in the last 5 years or so than the
previous 20 years because so much spam has spoofed identities.
-wayne